WarlockWarlock is a drawing Curser with extra abilities. I've actually played with this thing before, and it tends to begin by hitting Coppers to try to hold down other players' decks before shifting to Cursing.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't. Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
Shaman - $3
Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player with Bewitched gains a Curse.
Each player without Bewitched takes it or discards a card from their hand, their choice.
BewitchedYes, the second part of the attack also applies to the player who played Shaman. They can give themselves another Action next turn.... if they dare.
State
At the start of your turn, return this for +1 Action.
I'd appreciate help wording this to be clearer and more succinct, if it isn't sufficiently so already.
+3 Cards
Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player discards a copy of it if they have 5 or more cards in hand, or reveals they can't and gains a copy of it.
Muster • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Each other player chooses an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option that can't be done).
At the start of your next turn, +$2
Brazier • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose: they gain a Copper, or each player that isn't them gets +1 Coffers.
During your next turn, +1 Buy and Copper makes $1 more.
Hey gambit05: does mountebank count as an attack-with-choice? like, is it still a choice if the choice is a no-brainer that you'd always take if you could?
Question: Does the card have to have the "Attack" type? For instance, would Masquerade count, here?
QuoteWarlockWarlock is a drawing Curser with extra abilities. I've actually played with this thing before, and it tends to begin by hitting Coppers to try to hold down other players' decks before shifting to Cursing.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't. Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
Hey gambit05: does mountebank count as an attack-with-choice? like, is it still a choice if the choice is a no-brainer that you'd always take if you could?
Yes, Mountebank would count, but I wouldn't give it a high score.
Boggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+$2
Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, choose and receive one Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
Old Versions
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50950520283_81855940d6_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948190427_474fcbc78c_b.jpg)
STINGY WITCH - $5
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards a card from hand, draws until they have 4 cards in hand, then either gains three Coppers, putting one of them in hand, or gains a Curse to their hand, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
STINGY WITCH - $5[/size]
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Each other player either gains a Copper onto their deck or gains a Curse, their choice.
(They may pick an option they can't do.)
(https://i.imgur.com/7izlTjZm.png)QuoteSTINGY WITCH - $5
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Each other player either gains a Copper onto their deck or gains a Curse, their choice.
(They may pick an option they can't do.)
You want her to give you what? Cards? COINS? You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much newt eyes cost these days? You're lucky she'll (maybe) curse your enemies.
Being a cantrip creates the potential to bury your opponents in Copper, until or unless they decide they're fed up with it and just eat the Curses. Once they do, and the Curses run out, you might regret having bought too many of these.
(https://i.imgur.com/kcrQGkX.png)I have a couple questions:
which makes these Coppers with a Buy after 3 plays?Sure you can give your opponent your VP tokens and ignore the attack forever, but that's a 6 point VP swing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y9zj0K7m/Sacked-Town.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/RIR0n0t.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/9b1PyI9.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/nF2kdRg.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/7W8CStw.jpg)Here is how I would word it:
utterly insane 4-6 playerSlightly harsh but I agree that you need to be slightly insane if you play Dominion with more than 4 players.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZcwyB0D.png)
{here-is-how-I-would-word-it sequence}
If you don't want to follow my wording, that's fine. I'm just suggesting wordings to those who would like to change their cards to have the wordings that I think best follow official dominion cards (in this cards case, Torturer).that's not adding anything that couldn't be covered in the rulebook FAQ other than a smaller font size, so i'm not going to take you up on that wording. There's something to be said for brevity.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZcwyB0D.png)
If you don't want to follow my wording, that's fine. I'm just suggesting wordings to those who would like to change their cards to have the wordings that I think best follow official dominion cards (in this cards case, Torturer).that's not adding anything that couldn't be covered in the rulebook FAQ other than a smaller font size, so i'm not going to take you up on that wording. There's something to be said for brevity.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZcwyB0D.png)
Torturer‘s second edition wording is not necessary it all. It is rather a rule reminder because some folks played Torturer wrongly. Plus, as spineflu already said, Coppers are not going to run out.If you don't want to follow my wording, that's fine. I'm just suggesting wordings to those who would like to change their cards to have the wordings that I think best follow official dominion cards (in this cards case, Torturer).that's not adding anything that couldn't be covered in the rulebook FAQ other than a smaller font size, so i'm not going to take you up on that wording. There's something to be said for brevity.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZcwyB0D.png)
As I said, if you don't want to go by my wording (and by official cards), that's fine. I'm just putting it out there in case you do.Torturer‘s second edition wording is not necessary it all. It is rather a rule reminder because some folks played Torturer wrongly. Plus, as spineflu already said, Coppers are not going to run out.If you don't want to follow my wording, that's fine. I'm just suggesting wordings to those who would like to change their cards to have the wordings that I think best follow official dominion cards (in this cards case, Torturer).that's not adding anything that couldn't be covered in the rulebook FAQ other than a smaller font size, so i'm not going to take you up on that wording. There's something to be said for brevity.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/4c797ebafe4d3012eeabc08d4755d751/image.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZcwyB0D.png)
It really helps to understand why official cards are worded like they are instead of treating them as holy word or whatever.
Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't. Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
Hm. It is shorter, but I'm not feeling that it's clear a player with 4 cards gains a copy of it. Adding additional clauses to it makes it even harder to read.I'd appreciate help wording this to be clearer and more succinct, if it isn't sufficiently so already.Code: [Select]+3 Cards
changes the functionality a little in that you get to see hands with <5 cards, but is more succinct with the gain clause. should mostly only matter for patron (a benefit for the person revealing) and maybe masquerade (a benefit to see if it's worth it to masq)
Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player discards a copy of it if they have 5 or more cards in hand, or reveals they can't and gains a copy of it.
Here's how I would word it"Costing up to $3" is fine change. I don't like "or reveals they can't" being a parenthetical (even though it is on Bad Omens, Bureaucrat, and Cutpurse) because parenthetical phrases in game rules are typically reminders of rules rather than rules themselves. Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.Code: [Select]+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't). If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveals they can't. If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
I was playing in games with little trashing per my recollection. Early decks really need $5 turns, and you don't get them when you're discarding Coppers. You have to respond to the game state, but it often seemed to perform better by choosing Copper for the first 1 or 2 plays. Perhaps because a brainlessly Cursing Warlock in the latter portion of the game limits its own Cursing by players discarding Curses, which, as Villain shows us by discarding our Estates, is pretty awful.Warlock is a drawing Curser with extra abilities. I've actually played with this thing before, and it tends to begin by hitting Coppers to try to hold down other players' decks before shifting to Cursing.Really? That seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't you want to start handing out Curses right away? It's a much stronger attack, after all, and there are a limited number of Curses to hand out.
Brazier • $5 • Action - Attack - DurationI messed around a bit with a card that can give other players Coffers, and it is bad news in multiplayer. The coins get out of control. By contrast, Bargain's Horses are not simply harmless until used, making its scaling issues less notable, on top of occurring less frequently than an Attack that gives benefits to all other players. If giving out Coffers is the right move, a 3-player game has Coffers fly 2/1/1 for merely one player using one Brazier, let alone more Braziers and let alone games with more players; that's even more than the cards I've used that directly give Coffers to other players.
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose: they gain a Copper, or each player that isn't them gets +1 Coffers.
During your next turn, +1 Buy and Copper makes $1 more.
Boggart - $5This card has poor scaling (you're much more likely to get the 1 Boon you want if there are multiple players choosing the Hexes, and it creates a weird weight on the second player to choose the same Hex to avoid improving the Boon selection) and absolutely monstrous resolution time. +Cards are an especially bothersome benefit on Fate/Doom cards: The only Fates/Dooms that aren't stop cards only give Boons/Hexes once because the resolution speed of Boons/Hexes themselves are already slow enough.
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card. Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
Sacked TownBeing able to combine it with something like Militia could work out (possibly more for the fun of the theme than actual balance), but it is probably worthwhile to make Sacked Town on its own give out 1 Curse at most. 3 Sacked Towns giving 2 Curses sounds tough.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card; or each other player draw until they have 5 cards in hand, gaining a Curse per card drawn.
Frankly, you have to be a little soft in the head to play in 4-player. The game is at least functional in 4-player, so I agree with BBobb that a card not working at that count is a major problem.Slightly harsh but I agree that you need to be slightly insane if you play Dominion with more than 4 players.Dowry...utterly insane 4-6 player...
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. Each other player discards a card or pays 1VP to you, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
Setup: Each player gains 3VP.
Boggart - $5This card has poor scaling (you're much more likely to get the 1 Boon you want if there are multiple players choosing the Hexes, and it creates a weird weight on the second player to choose the same Hex to avoid improving the Boon selection) and absolutely monstrous resolution time. +Cards are an especially bothersome benefit on Fate/Doom cards: The only Fates/Dooms that aren't stop cards only give Boons/Hexes once because the resolution speed of Boons/Hexes themselves are already slow enough.
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card. Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.Oops. I meant to put that in, but must have forgotten. Thanks.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50950520283_81855940d6_b.jpg)QuoteBoggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card
Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
This is a card that tries to create interesting choices for every player. Tried to make it scale properly, but I am not confident with the wording. I also am not sure if the +1 Card base is the right choice, but it felt pretty weak at only giving you a Boon and each other player a Hex of their choice. Suggestions on wording and top part changes would be appreciated.
Edit: Changed the +1 Card to +$2 to try and speed up resolution time. Thanks to Fragasnap for the feedback.QuoteOld Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948190427_474fcbc78c_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50950520283_81855940d6_b.jpg)QuoteBoggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card
Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
This is a card that tries to create interesting choices for every player. Tried to make it scale properly, but I am not confident with the wording. I also am not sure if the +1 Card base is the right choice, but it felt pretty weak at only giving you a Boon and each other player a Hex of their choice. Suggestions on wording and top part changes would be appreciated.
Edit: Changed the +1 Card to +$2 to try and speed up resolution time. Thanks to Fragasnap for the feedback.QuoteOld Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948190427_474fcbc78c_b.jpg)
I think potentially being able to receive two Boons along with inflicting your opponents with Hexes makes this compare way too favorably to Bard for just costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't. Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.Hm. It is shorter, but I'm not feeling that it's clear a player with 4 cards gains a copy of it. Adding additional clauses to it makes it even harder to read.I'd appreciate help wording this to be clearer and more succinct, if it isn't sufficiently so already.Code: [Select]+3 Cards
changes the functionality a little in that you get to see hands with <5 cards, but is more succinct with the gain clause. should mostly only matter for patron (a benefit for the person revealing) and maybe masquerade (a benefit to see if it's worth it to masq)
Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player discards a copy of it if they have 5 or more cards in hand, or reveals they can't and gains a copy of it.Here's how I would word it"Costing up to $3" is fine change. I don't like "or reveals they can't" being a parenthetical (even though it is on Bad Omens, Bureaucrat, and Cutpurse) because parenthetical phrases in game rules are typically reminders of rules rather than rules themselves. Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.Code: [Select]+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't). If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
Would the following wording make it sufficiently clear that a player with 4 cards in hand reveals their hand and gains a copy of the chosen card? Is allowing the player of Warlock to reveal a card from hand even worth the additional words just to enable hitting cards from empty piles? (I originally had Warlock as "name a card," but that isn't really how the phrase works in Dominion.)Code: [Select]+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveals they can't. If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
Thank you for the assistance.
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it or reveals they can't; any player except you that did not discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
That is true, but it really depends how people choose. I guess I could make it so you can only receive one of the Boons paired with a chosen Hex. That would limit the benefits gained and still allow your opponents to eliminate one of the Boons by not choosing the paired Hex. Alternatively I could just drop the vanilla ability to +$1, but it feels pretty weak at $5.
(https://i.imgur.com/nOFiTe6.png)Here is how I would word it:
(https://i.imgur.com/nOFiTe6.png)This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
I think it was pointed out before that your version is significantly longer. While it's true that the wording is closer to existing cards, it is also true the Donald X.'s design philosophy has shifted more towards "don't have small text" over "have things be consistent with prior wordings".Here is how I would word it:QuoteShaman - $3
Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player with Bewitched gains a Curse.
Each player without Bewitched takes it or discards a card from their hand, their choice.QuoteShaman - $3
Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player who has Bewitched gains a Curse.
Each player (including you) who doesn't have Bewitched either takes it or discards a card from their hand, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
(https://i.imgur.com/nOFiTe6.png)This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
In all other cases, you don’t really want a Mandarin style self Ghost Ship effect.
Im a bit of a mess this week, but here is my current submission: a pillage variant with a choice for the victims
(https://i.imgur.com/xnB1D6X.png)
This is probably broken in some way. but ill fix it later
Edit 2:
I simplified the card, as it was too wordy. this should contain the essence of it, and still have choice. now its always a "pillage away their best card, but increase their handsize by one"
(https://i.imgur.com/C0oJV5t.png)
Edit 3:
Wording change to buff it a bit.
(https://i.imgur.com/RIR0n0t.png)
Edit 4: added art, cleaned the wording a bit per BBobs suggestion, and buffed it to +3 cards.
(https://i.imgur.com/D7P6NQA.png)
I think this can be brutal with a normal down to X handsize Attack. In the absence of other handsize Attacks it could be too weak. Sure, the opponents have to discard their best card but they nonetheless net draw one. But then again it could be too harsh in an engine, you simply first discard their splitters and then their non-terminals.Im a bit of a mess this week, but here is my current submission: a pillage variant with a choice for the victims
(https://i.imgur.com/xnB1D6X.png)
This is probably broken in some way. but ill fix it later
Edit 2:
I simplified the card, as it was too wordy. this should contain the essence of it, and still have choice. now its always a "pillage away their best card, but increase their handsize by one"
(https://i.imgur.com/C0oJV5t.png)
Edit 3:
Wording change to buff it a bit.
(https://i.imgur.com/RIR0n0t.png)
Edit 4: added art, cleaned the wording a bit per BBobs suggestion, and buffed it to +3 cards.
(https://i.imgur.com/D7P6NQA.png)
Im wondering if anyone has any further feedback or questions about it.
Im wondering if anyone has any further feedback or questions about it.
(https://i.ibb.co/5BTxs50/Hawker.png)I like this but I am not sure whether it coul be too pile-y if it includes Green. If you play two of those in one turn, you can empty half the Province pile in one turn.
I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
(https://i.ibb.co/5BTxs50/Hawker.png)I like this but I am not sure whether it coul be too pile-y if it includes Green. If you play two of those in one turn, you can empty half the Province pile in one turn.
I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
(https://i.imgur.com/nOFiTe6.png)This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
In all other cases, you don’t really want a Mandarin style self Ghost Ship effect.
Redoubt - Action Attack, $3 cost.
+ $2
Each other player may discard a Curse. Those who don't gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
Rook - Treasure Curse Heirloom, $3 cost.I hope this is self-intuitive. A Curse Heirloom should be fine rules-wise apart from whether 'Curse' means the card name or the type, and the Heirloom should point towards type? It wouldn't be too hard to say 'Rook or Curse' but this seems the most elegant way.
$1
-1VP
-
When you trash this or discard it from play, put it in the player to your left's discard pile.
(https://i.ibb.co/5BTxs50/Hawker.png)
I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
New Entry
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/72c7b40a4798e559912a98b7084c4a08/image.png)QuoteMuster • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't do).
At the start of your next turn, +$2
Until your next turn,Aat the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an optionthey can't dothat can't be done).
At the start of your next turn, +$2
(https://i.ibb.co/5BTxs50/Hawker.png)I would word it to make it shorter, like this:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/24b71b70b26e4c1ed27766d78347b987/Redoubt.png)Here is how I would word it:
New Entry
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/602ac1986701907824a07251/72c7b40a4798e559912a98b7084c4a08/image.png)QuoteMuster • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't do).
At the start of your next turn, +$2
Might not this be better:QuoteUntil your next turn,Aat the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an optionthey can't dothat can't be done).
At the start of your next turn, +$2
I know "that they can't do" comes from Torturer, but this clarifies that they can choose the second option even if the Spoils pile (maybe, if Bandit Camp is also in the Kingdom) is empty. Taking those isn't something they can't do, it's something you can't do.
"Until your next turn," is from Haunted Woods.
Here is how I would word it:
+2 Cards
Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
See Mountebank
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/24b71b70b26e4c1ed27766d78347b987/Redoubt.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/970e838ba2a4516f99cf183039a81b43/RedoubtRook.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/24b71b70b26e4c1ed27766d78347b987/Redoubt.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/970e838ba2a4516f99cf183039a81b43/RedoubtRook.png)
Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
(http://i.imgur.com/20Szsoi.png)I'm not really sure on the balance, but this card looks insanely cool and strategic. Really good job.
(https://i.imgur.com/FGNDTrF.png)
I'm withdrawing my previous entry. I've come up with something more interesting:
(http://i.imgur.com/20Szsoi.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FGNDTrF.png)
You now have your own junk pile, with junk that only you can hand out! But when should you give it?
In the beginning, it will hobble them right away.
In the mid-game, they'll have to waste precious terminal space to play it.
Or you can give it out at the very end when they have no chance to get rid of it.
Disaster itself can also give your opponent a choice of playing it vs. playing something that will be more immediately helpful.
Rules Clarification: Each player has their own Disaster pile, which does not count as part of their deck (so any Disaster cards they didn't hand out do not count against their score.) There are 4 Disasters in each pile in a 2-player game, 6 Disasters in each pile in a 3-player game, and so on (I tried to make it so that it scaled well for different player sizes.)
I'm withdrawing my previous entry. I've come up with something more interesting:
(http://i.imgur.com/20Szsoi.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FGNDTrF.png)
You now have your own junk pile, with junk that only you can hand out! But when should you give it?
In the beginning, it will hobble them right away.
In the mid-game, they'll have to waste precious terminal space to play it.
Or you can give it out at the very end when they have no chance to get rid of it.
Disaster itself can also give your opponent a choice of playing it vs. playing something that will be more immediately helpful.
Rules Clarification: Each player has their own Disaster pile, which does not count as part of their deck (so any Disaster cards they didn't hand out do not count against their score.) There are 4 Disasters in each pile in a 2-player game, 6 Disasters in each pile in a 3-player game, and so on (I tried to make it so that it scaled well for different player sizes.)
I fear that this is even too good at $4. Sure, Young Witch is fairly weak so it is not the best benchmark but this looks far stronger.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/24b71b70b26e4c1ed27766d78347b987/Redoubt.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/970e838ba2a4516f99cf183039a81b43/RedoubtRook.png)
Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
Wording now updated and image added:
(https://i.imgur.com/AvKiYtG.png)QuoteDark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a curse and a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained.
-
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to put it into your hand.
Choices:Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
I fear that this is even too good at $4. Sure, Young Witch is fairly weak so it is not the best benchmark but this looks far stronger.(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/24b71b70b26e4c1ed27766d78347b987/Redoubt.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5fcff03d61c0530278a96e07/970e838ba2a4516f99cf183039a81b43/RedoubtRook.png)
Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
(On mobile now - will update later to check wording against official cards and add card pic)QuoteDark WoodsChoices:
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
Do you gain a 2-3 cost card to double-junk opponents?
If you have 2 in hand (and played village), do you play it twice or gain first good card to hand to play it instead?
If attacked with it, do you save it to attack on your turn, or gain possible 4-cost to hand that synergizes well with it (or gain curse to hand if you have trasher)?
Do you still play it if curses are empty?
Looking for advice mostly on power level, but also on wording, balance, interaction, etc.
2 Coins instead of 2 Cards would be a simple way to nerf it.The only problem is that this change will make it very similar to Mountebank.
(On mobile now - will update later to check wording against official cards and add card pic)This seems quite oppressive. Dealing out 2 junk cards is super strong. At the baseline, this is something like "Gain a Silver, each other player gains a Copper and a Curse". While this is arguably weaker than Mountebank, it makes for extremely boring games. It might be more interesting due to the greater range of options, but I imagine that most of the times, giving your opponents more junk will be optimal.QuoteDark WoodsChoices:
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
Do you gain a 2-3 cost card to double-junk opponents?
If you have 2 in hand (and played village), do you play it twice or gain first good card to hand to play it instead?
If attacked with it, do you save it to attack on your turn, or gain possible 4-cost to hand that synergizes well with it (or gain curse to hand if you have trasher)?
Do you still play it if curses are empty?
Looking for advice mostly on power level, but also on wording, balance, interaction, etc.
Redoubt - Action Attack, $3 cost.
+ $2
Each other player may discard a Curse. Those who don't gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
Rook - Treasure Curse Heirloom, $3 cost.
$1
-1VP
-
When you trash this or discard it from play, put it in the player to your left's discard pile.
Since two-thirds of the entries so far are junkers (many of which are more interesting than mine), I decided to switch out my previous entry for something completely different and more interesting:I remember seeing a similar card to this, but it wasn't a Duration. You could use the +Buy to first scout opposing hands before choosing your second buy. Here you have to cycle 2 of them to achieve the same thing, which is weaker. $3 weak though? Maybe. It can encourage mirror play too, which can be undesirable.
(https://i.imgur.com/ri3b1r9.png)
I've updated my OP as well.
Since two-thirds of the entries so far are junkers (many of which are more interesting than mine), I decided to switch out my previous entry for something completely different and more interesting:It can encourage mirror play too, which can be undesirable.
(https://i.imgur.com/ri3b1r9.png)
I've updated my OP as well.
Haunted Shed
+1 Card
+$1
Choose one: +1 Action, or each other player gains a Curse.
Action - Attack
$5
In some situations, you could end up giving one opponent more than 2 Disasters, right?
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:
(https://i.imgur.com/Vd9N4t1.png)QuoteBewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
(some of you may recognize it from a past contes, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)
Notes:
• It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
• That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
• I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. I would mitigate starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
• when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variant, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
• I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"
Any feedback / thoughts?
(https://i.imgur.com/6n1xAILl.png)QuoteSTINGY WITCH - $5
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards a card from hand, draws until they have 4 cards in hand, then either gains three Coppers, putting one of them in hand, or gains a Curse to their hand, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
why I think it works as a cantrip, is that (imo) it has the highest risk of any attack of backfiringThinking of the times Swindler flipped a Province, ending the game...
I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:
(https://i.imgur.com/Vd9N4t1.png)QuoteBewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
(some of you may recognize it from a past contes, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)
Notes:
• It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
• That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
• I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. It would mitigate for starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
• when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variants, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
• I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"
Any feedback / thoughts?
Jilted Witch - $4
Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player looks through their discard pile. They may reveal from it a non-Action card costing 2 or less, and put it onto their deck.
If they didn't, they reveal and discard the top card of their deck, and gain a Curse if it costs 2 or less.
(https://i.imgur.com/oNSP62I.png)I like the mix of using existing junk in deck and giving new junk as an attack. However, this card currently has accountability, scaling, and balance issues.QuoteJilted Witch - $4
Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player looks through their discard pile. They may reveal from it a non-Action card costing 2 or less, and put it onto their deck.
If they didn't, they reveal and discard the top card of their deck, and gain a Curse if it costs 2 or less.
Balance - as it's currently written, this card punishes decks that haven't trashed junk effectively in two ways but doesn't punish decks that have removed all coppers and estates at all. This could be addressed by changing the second half's cursing to happen if revealing a card costing more than 2.Similarly, Mountebank punishes decks that remove curses you've given them, and Young Witch punishes decks that don't build around the Bane pile. Wall punishes decks that want to grow too large. This is not a balance issue.
Scaling - imagine a worst case game with no trashing cards and playing a 6-player game (I know, terrible). 5 players can keep a 6th effectively drawing the same coppers and estates over and over again without cycling the deck (depending on how the balance noted above and accountability noted below are addressed). Even so, in a 2 or 3 player game, getting hit by 2 or 3 of the by a player with a strong engine can wreck the top of your deck really fast.Cursers already exist in 6 player games, and yes, they are more vicious. This card scales well to be a 50-50 curser in such games, as mostly any milled card yielding Curse can be topdecked between mills. Once the curses run out, this mills a card for no disbenefit. This doesn't have scaling issues.
Accountability - if I was attacked with this, I "look" (without showing others) and do not reveal and top-deck any junk even if I find some. I'll take a gamble that the card I reveal will not make me gain a curse, especially as currently worded (if the change noted in balance above is made, I may top-deck copper, depending on my deck). But changing "look" to "reveal" and forcing any junk found to be top-decked would significantly increase resolution time and make this a brutal scaling attack.I think you've misread the card (and possibly the contest - there has to be a choice involved in all entries); you aren't forced to topdeck if you don't want to: you choose, having looked first and decided this. There is no accountability issue.
Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
At the point where they play the Silver, they have already used an Action to play the original card. You are not playing a card "as" anything here, you are using an Action card to play another card (form the supply). So if you started with one Action and played an Action card, using Moral Panic's effect to play a Silver with it, you would end up with 0 Actions.Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
At the point where they play the Silver, they have already used an Action to play the original card. You are not playing a card "as" anything here, you are using an Action card to play another card (form the supply). So if you started with one Action and played an Action card, using Moral Panic's effect to play a Silver with it, you would end up with 0 Actions.Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
I don't think you need (or reveal they can't) here. If they can't, they just have to choose the other option, which is better anyway.
Sure. Nonetheless, you don't need to have the () on the card.
(https://i.imgur.com/ukm32Kw.png)
$4 Action-Attack
Each other player trashes a card from their hand or gains a Curse, their choice. You may trash a card from your hand.
If any Treasures or Action cards are trashed, +2 Coffers.
If any Victory cards or Curses are trashed, +2VP.
Quote from: Crusaders$4 Action-Attack
Trash a card from your hand. Each other playermayeither trashes a card from their hand or gains a Curse, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
If any Treasures or Action cards are trashed, +$2.
If any Victory cards or Curses are trashed, +2VP.
Not sure if the card needs to specify that players can choose an option they can't do (like Torturer), or if that's understood.
(https://i.imgur.com/PSuD8XP.png)in what might be the most hackeneyed joke/trope in fantasy writing,
(https://i.imgur.com/T4CCpD4.png) (https://i.imgur.com/8KuN27Z.png)
QuoteBewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
There is something that cares about card names and being the same and (frustratingly) it isn't coming to mind right now, but you could just make cards from that pile an attack all the time (and change the Cursing token text to be like Crossroads or whatever, where it's only an Attack in the Noble Brigand sense the first time). Then it's on the players to judge whether its worth it to do when Beggar/Caravan Guard/Secret Chamber/Diplomat/Horse Traders/Squire are in the kingdom (which I think are the only card interactions which are changed).
As I am replying to this card anyway, I have a question, just to be sure I interpret the instructions indeed correctly: Aside of Action-Night cards (Werewolf) and via “back-to-the-Action phase” cards a la Villa, the Action card with the Curse token is earliest played in the next turn. So, I guess a player could buy Bewitch, place the token on a pile and that token could wait there until the player plays the first copy of that card even if it is like 10 turns later, right? What happens when you replay the same card (exactly the same copy) via Throne Room or Royal Carriage? With other words, is the Attack type attached to the individual copy of a card or (as I interpret it) to the first play only (and thus not Throne-able)?
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (During your turns, cards from that pile are also Attacks, and the first time you play one, each other player first gains a Curse.)
Also gambit, to be clear (and hopefully the new wording helps explain this), the Cursing token is like the token from Adventures in that each player has one and it stays on the pile until you buy another Bewitch to move it.
The only thing I can think of wording-wise is maybe specify who chooses what is gained that costs less.I knew there was something missing. Thanks!
"Each other player gains a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained and a curse."
This seems quite oppressive. Dealing out 2 junk cards is super strong. At the baseline, this is something like "Gain a Silver, each other player gains a Copper and a Curse". While this is arguably weaker than Mountebank, it makes for extremely boring games. It might be more interesting due to the greater range of options, but I imagine that most of the times, giving your opponents more junk will be optimal.
I also think the when-gain effect doesn't really add enough to be worth the extra complexity.
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a curse and a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained.
-
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to put it into your hand.
Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
It's not my entry any more, but no it doesn't end your Action phase.
If Alice plays a Moral Panic, and Bob plays a Smithy, he must instead choose from one of the cards costing $3 or less in the supply. He can choose Silver for +$2
I put that in there so $2 and $3 actions don't get completely nullified (they can be played as Copper for +$1).
At any rate, the wording for the Attack alone takes up 7 lines of text.
Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
It's not my entry any more, but no it doesn't end your Action phase.
If Alice plays a Moral Panic, and Bob plays a Smithy, he must instead choose from one of the cards costing $3 or less in the supply. He can choose Silver for +$2
I put that in there so $2 and $3 actions don't get completely nullified (they can be played as Copper for +$1).
At any rate, the wording for the Attack alone takes up 7 lines of text.
Okay, thanks for letting me know. So, I misinterpreted the text. I thought playing the first card as a Silver consumes an Action.
I just put the text of your initial submission, Moral Panic into the Card Image Generator. It gives me 8 lines with a slightly smaller font. The 2 lines of the "next turn" instruction can be even separated by a space from the top part to make the text more readable and it still doesn't look too wordy, in the sense that the words are worth the length, if you know what I mean. I dislike the "non-Command, Action or Treasure" part somehow; I think that can/should be slightly changed, though this wouldn't have any effect on my judging anyway.
So, if your only concern with Moral Panic is the length of its text, don't feel obliged to replace it just because of that.
Edit: I just realized that there would be a problem with Moral Panic's text: That playing the first Action card as a Silver is not terminal is not clear from the text and would need some clarification, which likely would make the text more wordy.
Oh sorry if it wasn't clear. It is terminal. You play an Action, and the instead of following its instructions, you play either another Action or a Treasure. Back to the scenario:
Alice's turn:
Alice plays a Moral Panic
(etc.)
Bob's turn:
Bob has 1 action
Bob spends an action to play a Smithy (and now has 0 actions remaining)
Instead of following the instructions on Smithy (+3 cards), Bob plays an Action or Treasure costing up to $3 from the supply.
Bob chooses Silver. Bob plays Silver, which gives him +$2.
Bob has 0 actions remaining (Silver doesn't give +Action)
It doesn't inherently end your Action phase (e.g. you could spend a Villager or call a Coin of the Realm or Royal Carriage)
It's also a 5-cost card. So people usually won't open with it (when a double-junk would hit the worst).Well, you are the mathdude so let’s get mathy. Chances for one player to open 5/2 or 2/5 is 1/6. Thus the chance that at least one player can open with this is 30.5% in 2P respectively 42.1% in 3P.
Valkyrie (Action-Attack, $5) Quote
| Jinxed (State) Quote
|
Quote
|
It's also a 5-cost card. So people usually won't open with it (when a double-junk would hit the worst).Well, you are the mathdude so let’s get mathy. Chances for one player to open 5/2 or 2/5 is 1/6. Thus the chance that at least one player can open with this is 30.5% in 2P respectively 42.1% in 3P.
Does not qualify as „unusual“ to me. Opening with a gainer or junker is usually good and if the card can do both, all the better.
Don't worry, take your time.
Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
Submission closed!
There is still a lot of work to do. I have to test the latest revisions of some cards and I have to convert my notes to a readable text. Please be patient.
Valkyrie (Action-Attack, $5) Quote
| Jinxed (State) Quote
|
Quote
|
I just want to chime in to say that I strongly approve or putting more effort into contest judging. :D
(although it's also worth mentioning that this is a new thing, so anyone participating shouldn't feel obligated to do it this well if they win in the future (or worse, not participate to avoid the obligation). Looking at page 50 of the old contest, people used to do it like this (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804311#msg804311), which would still be acceptable today.)
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile.
(During your turns, cards from this pile are also Attacks,
and when you play one, either follow its instructions
or each other player gains a Curse.)
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, either follow its instructions or each other player exiles a Curse.)
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (The first time you play a card from that pile this turn, instead of following its instructions, each other player gains a Curse.)
First thoughts: A simple Mountebank variant, even to the vanilla bonus. New is the association with a Heirloom “Curse” that will switch decks when played. I can’t find a reason not to play it, e.g. an Action card with the same instructions would be more challenging, or a “discard other than during Clean-up” Reaction. Redoubt, a terminal Curser for $3 with a +$2 bonus looks quite strong. I don’t see an immediate mechanical connection between Redoubt and Rook. Looks more like combining 2 different mechanics. Anyway, I wonder a bit about the choices. What about: “Each other player may discard a Rook. Those who…” as a Redoubt instruction? That would connect the pieces and would make playing Rooks on player’s own turns more challenging. Or at least like Cursed Gold, giving a penalty of not being able to play Rook as a requirement for passing it to the next player.I probably am last place in judging, that's fine; but I'd just like to be clear, I intended for each other player to be able to discard a Rook to Redoubt, using 'discard a Curse' to mean the Curse type (which Rook is).
In game thoughts/notes:
The Rook Heirloom does not have the slightest impact on game play. I couldn’t find a good reason not to open with Redoubt. I stopped playing at round 4. Sorry, there are too many flaws with this concept.
Conclusion:
See my first thoughts. I don’t want to sound too harsh, but in light of so many excellent submissions, I felt that playing with Redoubt/Rook was less exciting. I can’t offer much on how to improve the concept other than what I have mentioned in the “First thoughts” section. I just feel like Redoubt and Rook don’t belong to each other.
I concur that the effort gone in here is very impressive!QuoteFirst thoughts: A simple Mountebank variant, even to the vanilla bonus. New is the association with a Heirloom “Curse” that will switch decks when played. I can’t find a reason not to play it, e.g. an Action card with the same instructions would be more challenging, or a “discard other than during Clean-up” Reaction. Redoubt, a terminal Curser for $3 with a +$2 bonus looks quite strong. I don’t see an immediate mechanical connection between Redoubt and Rook. Looks more like combining 2 different mechanics. Anyway, I wonder a bit about the choices. What about: “Each other player may discard a Rook. Those who…” as a Redoubt instruction? That would connect the pieces and would make playing Rooks on player’s own turns more challenging. Or at least like Cursed Gold, giving a penalty of not being able to play Rook as a requirement for passing it to the next player.I probably am last place in judging, that's fine; but I'd just like to be clear, I intended for each other player to be able to discard a Rook to Redoubt, using 'discard a Curse' to mean the Curse type (which Rook is).
In game thoughts/notes:
The Rook Heirloom does not have the slightest impact on game play. I couldn’t find a good reason not to open with Redoubt. I stopped playing at round 4. Sorry, there are too many flaws with this concept.
Conclusion:
See my first thoughts. I don’t want to sound too harsh, but in light of so many excellent submissions, I felt that playing with Redoubt/Rook was less exciting. I can’t offer much on how to improve the concept other than what I have mentioned in the “First thoughts” section. I just feel like Redoubt and Rook don’t belong to each other.
So, does 'Curse' only mean the card named Curse?
Or are you saying that Rook was still somewhat meaningless in that playing and passing it on is always correct despite the ability to block Redoubt with it?
The latter option I could believe, it's possible to be hit by the first few Redoubts despite someone's best efforts to keep Rooks; that's why I chose Curses blocking as well.
Similarity to Mountebank and cheapness at $3 I can buy as well.
I do wonder how differently you would find Bewitch in a kingdom with no (or more limited) trashing. For example, in your test kingdom, how well would the official Witch card do?
I do wonder how differently you would find Bewitch in a kingdom with no (or more limited) trashing. For example, in your test kingdom, how well would the official Witch card do?
It seems that parts of your posts are addressed to me, at least the one above. I haven't tested Witch in a exactly the same Kingdom, but in similarly potent ones. Witch's Cursing effects mainly depends on how fast players can play them versus how fast they can trash, but generally the decks have enough power to not be affected too much by the Curses.
I've tested some of the submitted cards in almost the same Kingdom, but without trashing, by just replacing Steward with Vassal when I thought i needed the information for evaluating those cards. Without remembering the details now, I guess I came to a conclusion about how Bewitch works without testing it in a second game.
If some other parts of your posts are also addressed to me and if you like to know my opinion, I'll have a look at your posts later. I first want to finish this contest round (which will be soon) and then I would like to take a break from Dominion for at least some days.
Valkyrie (Action-Attack, $5) Quote
| Jinxed (State) Quote
|
Conclusion
As a side note that doesn’t have any impact on my assessment of the card you present, I am curious how it come that you sometimes come up with early versions of cards that look like border line crap, but soon after you present a version that looks amazingly better.
I find that trying to come up with the "perfect card" doesnt really work for me. So what i do is: See the contest theme; Generate different card ideas, in this case 4; Share the most interesting ones on the Dominion discord variant server; GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK/thoughts; Edit the heck out of the cards based on the feedback; At this point in the process, post the current version here; Update here as i change the card; ping pong between feedback and editing and posting here, i often update the card during the week, so the first version here can be said to have "2 days thoughts" on it, while the final submitted version can be said to have "5 days thought" on it.Don't worry, it's not cheating.
I do it this way because im quite ditzy, and i just kinda get stuck on the crap phase otherwise: In a way im utilizing the collective Variant brainpower, as ive gotten feedback from RTT, Spineflue, Carline, and uhhh like lots of other people. Is this cheating btw?
My latest idea: what if it worked as a pseudo Way (and it's cost could probably change to $3 or maybe $4):QuoteMove your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile.
(During your turns, cards from this pile are also Attacks,
and when you play one, either follow its instructions
or each other player gains a Curse.)
Quote
|
It's not hard at all to add 'or Rook' to the text on Redoubt, but what would happen with say Mountebank itself? Could you discard Rooks to it? Maybe Rook would have a rulebook note to say treat it like the card called Curse.
My latest idea: what if it worked as a pseudo Way (and it's cost could probably change to $3 or maybe $4):QuoteMove your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile.
(During your turns, cards from this pile are also Attacks,
and when you play one, either follow its instructions
or each other player gains a Curse.)
From your various suggestions, I like the first one the most. The advantage is that there is a correlation between the copy number of the selected card in a player’s deck and the ability for Cursing. If Bewitch is cheap enough, it will also encourage players a bit more to switch the target pile during the game when the deck composition changes over time. How about the following instructions:
QuoteMove your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. When you
play a card from that pile, choose one: Follow its instructions;
or play it as an Attack with "Each other player gains a Curse."
Would that be clear enough? It fits in 3 lines, though the font is a bit tinier. The wording is partially from the newest version of Inheritance. It is not printed yet as far as I know, but the digital version from Dominion online is available on the wiki site.