Hi all,
What would people think of a new weekly contest specifically dedicated to fan card mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.25)? (credit to spineflue for starting this "atlas")
Inspired by weekly design content #90*, Steal Ideas! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855165#msg855165), but in this case every entry would have to use the fan card mechanic chosen by that week's judge.
* and the fact that I was mildly disappointed to see no one expand on my Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803063#msg803063) mechanic...
If we like this idea, I think the best thing would be to wait until the current "Set Design Contest has worked its way through every expansion, then have this contest take its place.
Thoughts?
At the start of your Clean-up phase, you may remove tokens from this to trash a card from your hand or one you have in play for each token removed.
Apse Chapel - Action - $2
+2 Worshippers.
At the start of your Clean-up phase, you may remove tokens from this. For each removed token, trash a card that you would discard this turn.
At the start of your Clean-up phase, you may remove tokens from this.
For each removed token, trash a card that you would discard this turn.
Mendicant • $4 • Action
Trash a card from your hand.
+1 Worshipper per $1 it cost. If it was a Treasure, draw until you have 4 cards in hand and +1 Action.
Mendicant • $4 • Action
Trash a card from your hand.
+1 Worshipper per $1 it cost. If it was a Treasure, +2 Cards and +1 Action.
Mendicant • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand. +1 Worshippers per $1 it cost. If you have no Worshippers, +1 Action
Assuming I've interpreted the Worshippers rules correctly, I think that Mendicant is ridiculously strong. It's pretty likely that in a game where you open it and Silver, that by the end of your Turn 5, you've gotten to trash 2 Estates+4 Coppers or 3 Estates+3 Coppers, and hit $5 once or twice. This seems better than Chapel or Cathedral in most games.
Midnight Ritual - $4
Night - Duration - Attack
You may discard a card. Each other player gains a copy of it.
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +2 Worshippers; or +2 Coffers; or +1 Card.
----
When you gain this, gain a Curse.
Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50903729506_b8599013b1_b.jpg)
So for the rules of the Worshippers, do they work on cards that were in play that you would discard in cleanup, or cards that were left in your hand, or both?
EDIT: I guess from looking above, it's either? And the wording is to disallow trashing things like Durations that are supposed to stay out?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50903729506_ca0bbc9ebc_b.jpg)QuoteMidnight Ritual - $4
Night - Duration - Attack
You may reveal and discard a card from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a copy of it.
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +2 Worshippers; or +1 Card; or gain a Silver.
----
When you gain this, gain a Curse.
It is a trasher that also can attack. It can also act as half a Caravan or Silver gainer. The attack required you to have the junk you want to give in your deck, making the decision on what to trash a little bit more of a decision. It also jump start your cursing campaign by giving you a Curse when you gain it. Being a duration is intended to slow it down and make it not as oppressive as it could be as it is non-terminal and does not cost $5. Feedback is appreciated.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50903729506_ca0bbc9ebc_b.jpg)I would capitalize worhsippers.QuoteMidnight Ritual - $4
Night - Duration - Attack
You may reveal and discard a card from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a copy of it.
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +2 Worshippers; or +1 Card; or gain a Silver.
----
When you gain this, gain a Curse.
$4 - Action
+$2
You may put your deck into your discard pile. You may look through your discard pile and trash up to 2 cards from it. If you trashed any, each other player gains +1 Worshipper.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/6019e2e25503134ab57e6490/5b34ec92669af616e9995c0a2ce32a87/image.png)QuoteMendicant • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand. +1 Worshippers per $1 it cost. If you have no Worshippers, +1 Action
This is a Recruiter and Spice Merchant variant; I took the pricing from Spice Merchant so everyone would be able to open with it. I haven't tested it but I suspect it can trash very fast if you trash good stuff, or be a Spice Merchant style pseudolab (pseudo bc hand size doesn't increase with this) when trashing Coppers/Curses. I think it's reasonable for it to cost the same as Spice Merchant bc it lacks the woodcutter flexibility that s.m. has (in favor of chapel-like flexibility).
A couple of quick (physical) design notes:
• Worshippers are tokens, not cards, so it should be +1 (or x) Worshipper, not gain a Worshipper
• if you're using the Card Image Generator (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html), you can bold the keyword by adding Worshipper under Additional Bold Keywords
A couple of quick (physical) design notes:
• Worshippers are tokens, not cards, so it should be +1 (or x) Worshipper, not gain a Worshipper
• if you're using the Card Image Generator (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html), you can bold the keyword by adding Worshipper under Additional Bold Keywords
My submission (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg861745#msg861745) has been updated with the correctly bolded keyword and rewording. I am actually unsure now if it should be $4 or $5. I think it should be ok at $4, but would love some opinions on it.
Now it's almost strictly better than Spice Merchant. That's probably not ok.spice merchant can act as a source for buys; i'd argue the old version had that problem much worse. In any event, I revised it again, so that we don't have to have this conversation.
Sort-of-Butcher - Action, $3 cost.Of course it's not just Butcher, it's like Forager in how it trashes early.
+1 Action
+1 Worshipper
This turn, when you trash a card, you may remove any number of your Worshippers. If you remove any, gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the trashed card per Worshipper removed.
This contest feels like a great way to spark creativity! It certainly challenges me to think carefully about good design principles.how about "chef"? sort of a different take on worshippers with that connotation, ties kinda to butchers and foragers.
With Worshippers, I'm struggling to find ways to make them interesting over regular trashing. There's a wide variety of trashing techniques among the official cards already, and it's hard not to clash with them. So my conclusion is to add extra alternative ability, choose trashing or keep the Worshippers for something else. That way there can always be purpose to them after the starting deck is trashed as well.
I intentionally choose not to name my entry as I'm a bit uncomfortable around the flavour:QuoteSort-of-Butcher - Action, $3 cost.Of course it's not just Butcher, it's like Forager in how it trashes early.
+1 Action
+1 Worshipper
This turn, when you trash a card, you may remove any number of your Worshippers. If you remove any, gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the trashed card per Worshipper removed.
My submission (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg861745#msg861745) has been updated with the correctly bolded keyword and rewording. I am actually unsure now if it should be $4 or $5. I think it should be ok at $4, but would love some opinions on it.
I'm leaning more towards $5. Even if you gain a Curse with it, you can use that to fuel the junking attack (or easily get rid of it with a Worshipper). The attack combined with the next turn options make it quite strong, IMO, and it doesn't take up terminal space. That said, I don't think it would be a particularly strong $5 (I would perhaps consider changing the option of gaining 2 Silvers to something else).
This contest feels like a great way to spark creativity! It certainly challenges me to think carefully about good design principles.how about "chef"? sort of a different take on worshippers with that connotation, ties kinda to butchers and foragers.
With Worshippers, I'm struggling to find ways to make them interesting over regular trashing. There's a wide variety of trashing techniques among the official cards already, and it's hard not to clash with them. So my conclusion is to add extra alternative ability, choose trashing or keep the Worshippers for something else. That way there can always be purpose to them after the starting deck is trashed as well.
I intentionally choose not to name my entry as I'm a bit uncomfortable around the flavour:QuoteSort-of-Butcher - Action, $3 cost.Of course it's not just Butcher, it's like Forager in how it trashes early.
+1 Action
+1 Worshipper
This turn, when you trash a card, you may remove any number of your Worshippers. If you remove any, gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the trashed card per Worshipper removed.
(https://i.imgur.com/JmE1YvE.png)
Interesting! If you open double Miracle Worker, this could give you 6 Worshippers by the beginning of Turn 5 (assuming they don't collide and you don't spend any tokens in Turns 3 and 4). If you get lucky and draw a Miracle Worker on Turn 5, you could end up with 13 Worshippers in Turn 6, which would be enough to trash your starting Coppers and Estates, and both Miracle Workers. Seems pretty strong as an opener, especially since you get to play your Coppers before you trash them.
SaintSaint is a $4-cost Woodcutter that comes and goes with some Worshippers based on the variety of your better cards. Cards need to cost at least $3 to minimize games in which opening with a Worshipper is possible. You can still do it with Pooka (a wash anyway), Nomad Camp (getting 2 Woodcutters to trash 1 Estate), and Fool. If you get multiple Worshippers, one can be spent trashing the Saint to double-dip its ability.
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy, +$2
When you gain or trash this, +1 Worshipper for each differently named card you have in play costing at least $3.
(https://i.imgur.com/ASnZ2ue.png)It'd be so funny to have a game where the scoring is this + Fortress + Tomb. Mwahahahaha
Interesting! If you open double Miracle Worker, this could give you 6 Worshippers by the beginning of Turn 5 (assuming they don't collide and you don't spend any tokens in Turns 3 and 4). If you get lucky and draw a Miracle Worker on Turn 5, you could end up with 13 Worshippers in Turn 6, which would be enough to trash your starting Coppers and Estates, and both Miracle Workers. Seems pretty strong as an opener, especially since you get to play your Coppers before you trash them.
Do you think it should be $4 instead?
(https://i.ibb.co/fptx0sK/Shrine.png) | Shrine $2 Action – Reaction Quote
|
(https://i.ibb.co/1nDx9hv/Heretic.png)
(I know 'gains' is not the classically correct word, but it's simplest in this case and seems pretty unambiguous.)
Eternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $3
+$2
You may trash up to 2 Cards. If you do, +1 Worshipper.
Eternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+$2
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trash at least one, +1 Worshipper
(https://i.ibb.co/1nDx9hv/Heretic.png)
(I know 'gains' is not the classically correct word, but it's simplest in this case and seems pretty unambiguous.)
This is interestingly similar to handing out a Snow (from the previous weekly design challenge) instead of a Curse and worshipper. The main difference is that Snow does not deplete a pile and does not provide a benefit after the Curses are gone.
(https://i.imgur.com/zAko7Ep.png)QuoteEternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $3
+$2
You may trash up to 2 Cards. If you do, +1 Worshipper.
It almost seems too simple, but sometimes those end up being really good cards. It's a terminal 3-cost silver. But if you trash 1 or 2 cards, you get the ability to trash future cards too. There shouldn't be a problem with people wanting to open double Eternal Sacrifice - if you trash too much before you get silver or other coin, it will stunt your deck growth too much - besides, buying just one, you have the ability to trash 2 cards with it (hopefully 2 estates), plus another card after.
(https://i.imgur.com/zAko7Ep.png)QuoteEternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $3
+$2
You may trash up to 2 Cards. If you do, +1 Worshipper.
It almost seems too simple, but sometimes those end up being really good cards. It's a terminal 3-cost silver. But if you trash 1 or 2 cards, you get the ability to trash future cards too. There shouldn't be a problem with people wanting to open double Eternal Sacrifice - if you trash too much before you get silver or other coin, it will stunt your deck growth too much - besides, buying just one, you have the ability to trash 2 cards with it (hopefully 2 estates), plus another card after.
Worshippers are really good up until when you have your "perfect" deck. I agree their usefulness does drop off, but by that point the game should be at the end game.(https://i.ibb.co/1nDx9hv/Heretic.png)
(I know 'gains' is not the classically correct word, but it's simplest in this case and seems pretty unambiguous.)
This is interestingly similar to handing out a Snow (from the previous weekly design challenge) instead of a Curse and worshipper. The main difference is that Snow does not deplete a pile and does not provide a benefit after the Curses are gone.
Generally speaking, I guess the benefit of Worshippers should wane over the course of the game, so that by the time Curses run out, additional Worshippers become less useful. That of course can change if there are other types of junkers in the Kingdom, or cards like Flag Bearer.
(https://i.ibb.co/1nDx9hv/Heretic.png)
(I know 'gains' is not the classically correct word, but it's simplest in this case and seems pretty unambiguous.)
Well, I said I'd participate. So here's my attempt as well:I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxmxn3d0/Offering-v2.png)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm adding "if you trashed at least one" (similar to Bat).(https://i.imgur.com/zAko7Ep.png)QuoteEternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $3
+$2
You may trash up to 2 Cards. If you do, +1 Worshipper.
It almost seems too simple, but sometimes those end up being really good cards. It's a terminal 3-cost silver. But if you trash 1 or 2 cards, you get the ability to trash future cards too. There shouldn't be a problem with people wanting to open double Eternal Sacrifice - if you trash too much before you get silver or other coin, it will stunt your deck growth too much - besides, buying just one, you have the ability to trash 2 cards with it (hopefully 2 estates), plus another card after.
This seems really good for $3. Opening double Eternal Sacrifice isn't really an issue, since the card itself gives you economy. You wouldn't really need Silver.
Trashing up to 2 cards includes trashing 0. So would you get +1 Worshipper regardless of whether or not you trashed anything?
A card that gives two options of Steward at once for the same cost is most certainly busted, even if it misses the +2 Cards option.I missed the comparison to Steward - and yes, I barely use the +2 Cards option on that, so this is almost strictly better. I'm changing to $4 cost - it also fixes the ability to open double Eternal Sacrifice.
Eternal Sacrifice
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+$2
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trash at least one, +1 Worshipper
I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
"Each other player gets +1 Worshipper" is almost strictly worse than "each other player may trash a card from their hand,"
I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
Doesn't that just apply to cases where they are similar -- i.e., primarily to cases where a card just does something when it's bought/gained?
Here, the card cares about other cards being gained or bought, in which case it makes a large difference."Each other player gets +1 Worshipper" is almost strictly worse than "each other player may trash a card from their hand,"
I agree with the bigger point, but not with this part. You're using 'worse' as 'the bigger downside', i.e., 'the greater help for your opponent'. But trashing a card from your hand right now is often more useful than getting +1 Worshipper, and it may actually be more useful on average. Any draw-to-x effect, any 'discard your hand a and draw' effect, and menagerie would much rather trash immediately.
Here, let's look at when Buy/when gain triggers in the newest expansion, Menagerie:I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
Doesn't that just apply to cases where they are similar -- i.e., primarily to cases where a card just does something when it's bought/gained?
Here, the card cares about other cards being gained or bought, in which case it makes a large difference.
Would you have made Holstery an overpay card if you could have?No, because I no longer like doing when-buy triggers. The buy/gain distinction confuses too many people.
Here, let's look at when Buy/when gain triggers in the newest expansion, Menagerie:I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
Doesn't that just apply to cases where they are similar -- i.e., primarily to cases where a card just does something when it's bought/gained?
Here, the card cares about other cards being gained or bought, in which case it makes a large difference.
When gain effects: Camel Train, Sleigh, Sheepdog, Cavalry, Hostelry, Livery, Way of the Seal
When Buy effects:
Also,Would you have made Holstery an overpay card if you could have?No, because I no longer like doing when-buy triggers. The buy/gain distinction confuses too many people.
I totally disagree. We do design fan cards here, we are pretty familiar with the game and thus also deeply aware of the difference between gain and buy.Here, let's look at when Buy/when gain triggers in the newest expansion, Menagerie:I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
Doesn't that just apply to cases where they are similar -- i.e., primarily to cases where a card just does something when it's bought/gained?
Here, the card cares about other cards being gained or bought, in which case it makes a large difference.
When gain effects: Camel Train, Sleigh, Sheepdog, Cavalry, Hostelry, Livery, Way of the Seal
When Buy effects:
Also,Would you have made Holstery an overpay card if you could have?No, because I no longer like doing when-buy triggers. The buy/gain distinction confuses too many people.
big agree here. dxv saying he's not going to do overpay because it's too wordy for casual players does not mean I'm never going to touch the mechanic again; if anything, the opposite - that means the rest of the domain of overpay is ours to play around with and we should see what we can do with it (likewise, on-buy).I totally disagree. We do design fan cards here, we are pretty familiar with the game and thus also deeply aware of the difference between gain and buy.Here, let's look at when Buy/when gain triggers in the newest expansion, Menagerie:I would change it to an on-gain trigger since Donald X. is moving from on-buy to on-gain.
Doesn't that just apply to cases where they are similar -- i.e., primarily to cases where a card just does something when it's bought/gained?
Here, the card cares about other cards being gained or bought, in which case it makes a large difference.
When gain effects: Camel Train, Sleigh, Sheepdog, Cavalry, Hostelry, Livery, Way of the Seal
When Buy effects:
Also,Would you have made Holstery an overpay card if you could have?No, because I no longer like doing when-buy triggers. The buy/gain distinction confuses too many people.
DXV disliking on Buy triggers has more to do with keeping the game simple rule-wise for casual players than anything else. This is a noble goal but utterly irrelevant for us Dominion geeks here.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/6019e2e25503134ab57e6490/deea2a291936cb9665e20588092f3d4f/image.png) | Mendicant - spineflu This definitely started out too strong, so the nerfing helps a bit. At first, I was wary of being able to trash a $4/$5 card for 4/5 Worshippers, but, then again you have to use a buy for that card, and then trash it. And that's a one time thing, (unlike playing Apse Chapel more than twice). To start, you'd want to use it to trash Estates for +2 Worshippers, of course. My biggest concern is luck factor, you draw it with an Estate in hand, vs if I draw it with only Coppers. Feels like that could become a fairly big advantage. |
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50905564403_89cd37d1c8_b.jpg) | Midnight Ritual - Xen3k I have a soft spot for Night cards. I like that you want to discard bad cards to hand out copies to others, but then you can't use any Worshippers you already have on them that turn. (this could into play with the Curse it gains, for example). I wonder though, if it wouldn't play that differently with just "trash 2 cards from your hand" instead of Worshippers, especially given that you have the other options. At the very least, I might consider reducing it to two options. |
(https://i.imgur.com/G3ct9mvm.png) | Pilgrims' Hostel - emtzalex Nice, simple Village+. And similar to Midnight Ritual, you have to dicard the junk to gain the Worshipper, so you have to wait a while to trash it. It also creates an interest decision on whether you use them for your Estates first, possibly limiting how many you get, or Coppers, which of course, are better than Estates. |
(https://i.imgur.com/MDg5DJj.png) | Missionary - Timinou A card that grants Worshippers to your opponents! I like that it uses two different methods to basically allow players to trash any cards they want. (and while chapel as "trash 2 cards" is very weak, since this lets you trash any two it works well. |
Quote Sort-of-Butcher - Action, $3 cost. | Sort-of-Butcher - Aquila Hmmm, a way to use Worshippers for something other than trashing! I like it - especially since it requires you to trash a card (maybe with a different Worshipper). i.e one Worshipper let's you trash a card, 2 lets you Upgrade it, 3 lets you Remodel, etc. This adds an interesting decision for when to "spend" the Worshippers. I wonder what it would be like if it trashed a card itself (instead of "when you trash")? So in its most basic form, using the Worshipper immediately, it'd be like a cheaper upgrade (that doesn't draw). Or you could keep the Worshipper to use as a 2nd trash or for a future play of itself. For the record, I like the suggested name Chef, as it was pointed out gives an alternative meaning to the concept of Worshippers, for a card that gives an alternative use for them. |
(https://i.imgur.com/jBlmP9B.png) | Miracle Worker - Commodore Chuckles Another fun way of deferring the decision to use Worshippers by having them determine how many you get next turn. My biggest concern is that you could get very many, very fast, but it would be fun to play test to determine if it's better to use them ASAP or keep them to more quickly get to 11 Worshippers (to trash starting deck, plus this card). |
(https://i.imgur.com/Qfw37Om.png) | Martyr - Gubump I feel like I keep repeating myself, but more interesting deferment. When you gain this, you could use both Worshippers to trash 2 Coppers (or better if you have estates in your hand), but maybe it's better to keep 1 to trash your Martyr, and get 2 more Worshippers... |
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxmxn3d0/Offering-v2.png) | Offering - X-tra Independent of the Worshipper design, I like that this card rewards using additional buys, ie.. buy 1 card for 6, or 2 cards for 7. It's a nice touch that it gives you the Worshipper to eventually clear the copper you gained. (also good decision to give it a potion cost). |
(https://i.imgur.com/Xg3iK7V.jpg) | Saint - Fragasnap As pointed out, at face value looks similar to Marty. But with a different vanilla bonus and a modified below the line, this would play differently. (e.g. Martyr gives you Worshippers if you buy it as an opener, this one (usually) does not) In an actual expansion, you likely wouldn't see both these cards, but for a design contest, it's great to have these variants. I probably give this one a small edge, because it feels interesting to vary the # of Worshippers, but only actual playtesting would really determine it. |
(https://i.ibb.co/fptx0sK/Shrine.png) | Shrine - gambit05 Our first (and only) Reaction entry. The Reaction feels like a clever attempt to mitigate hand size attack as playing it gets your hand size to 3. (so the net affect of Militia, for example, would be to +1 Worshipper. For Torturer, however, it wouldn't mitigate much, you'd still discard two cards, then choose to gain the Curse you could then trash with the Worshipper? I don't know, overall feels a little weak, maybe without the discarding on play to buff it a little? |
(https://i.ibb.co/1nDx9hv/Heretic.png) | Heretic - silverspawn I agree with the feedback that this seems similar to giving the -1 token. The biggest difference being that once all the Curses are out, then (assuming no other trashing in the kingdom) your opponents can now begin to trash other weak cards. But I'm not sure if that feels different enough to me. |
(https://i.imgur.com/gLXaTo4.png) | Eternal Sacrifice - mathdude In some ways (except for the +$2) this feels closest to Chapel. you trash up to 3 instead of up to 4 (but the third is more powerful). I'm not sure how it would play, but I would think it might be more interesting if you only got the Worshipper of you trashed both cards. Or maybe something like trashing 1 gets you the Worshipper, trashing 2 gets you the +$2 (or some other bonus). It would make it feel more "sacrificial". |
OK, here's the post with the 12 entries for the contest so far (there's still ~22 hours til deadline!).
It's been about 58 hours.
Pilgrims' Hostel by emtzalex
I like the simplicity, and that I think it would create interesting decisions.
Congratulations! And great cards everyone; thanks for generating some fun ideas for me to try and play test!
I found it interesting that no one submitted any landscape cards for the contest. Nor for that matter any split piles, heirlooms, non supply piles, etc. All of the entries were standard Kingdom cards, and in fact, all but one were Action cards.
Consecration - $4
Event
+1 Worshipper. Trash a Curse from the
Supply. If you do, +1 VP.
(https://i.imgur.com/kUECH3Wm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/dEyimtFm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/wNnFhULm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/VceCv1Hm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/mAeodJ3m.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/10Heyigm.png) |
Vanilla Orchard - $4
Action - Conditional
+1 Card
+1 Action
If it's Warm and Rainy: +1 Card
If it's Warm and Dry: +1 Action
If it's Cool and Rainy: +$1
If it's Cool and Dry: +1 Buy
Flip Warm/Cool or Rainy/Dry.
WeathermanWith this, the player on your right can choose what effect you get if they gain a treasure on their turn.
$4 - Action - Duration - Conditional
At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Then, if it's Rainy, you may discard 2 cards for $2. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand.
-
In games using this, when you gain a treasure, you may flip Rainy/Dry.
Slipway • $5 • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: If it's High Tide, you may discard a Treasure for +3 Cards; If it's Low Tide, you may discard an Action for +$3.
When you discard this from play, turn High Tide / Low Tide over.
I think whether you use "Otherwise" or "If it's Dry" can possibly change what the card does here.
Say you play this card, then on your next turn Rainy is face up, so you discard a Tunnel and another card and gain a Gold. You gained a treasure so you flip Dry face up. If it said "If it's Dry", then you should also be able to trash a card, but since it says "Otherwise", you can't have both. (Am I right about this?)
I'm struggling to see how the Conditional type is justified, unless a card ever needs to interact with them specifically.
When you play this, if it's Easy Living...
Also, you can write which side starts face up on the relevant side of the Condition card itself.
I'm struggling to see how the Conditional type is justified, unless a card ever needs to interact with them specifically. Each different card needs its own set of conditions, so the Conditional type isn't really doing one common thing, and there's no unseen rule that needs explaining.But then there's also Fate/Doom cards to bring out Boons/Hexes, even though the cards already mention them.
Looter, for instance, explains not just adding the Ruins to the game, but also 10 per player, shuffled, and only the top one is visible. Players can refer to the rulebook to be reminded of all those unseen extra rules.
Artifacts, by comparison, don't need a type, nor anything with the journey token. You see them mentioned in the card's text, that prompts you to get them out the box, and that's it, no other rules.
Also, you can write which side starts face up on the relevant side of the Condition card itself.
I'm struggling to see how the Conditional type is justified, unless a card ever needs to interact with them specifically. Each different card needs its own set of conditions, so the Conditional type isn't really doing one common thing, and there's no unseen rule that needs explaining.But then there's also Fate/Doom cards to bring out Boons/Hexes, even though the cards already mention them.
Looter, for instance, explains not just adding the Ruins to the game, but also 10 per player, shuffled, and only the top one is visible. Players can refer to the rulebook to be reminded of all those unseen extra rules.
Artifacts, by comparison, don't need a type, nor anything with the journey token. You see them mentioned in the card's text, that prompts you to get them out the box, and that's it, no other rules.
Also, you can write which side starts face up on the relevant side of the Condition card itself.
Swallow - $4
Action - Conditional
+1 Card
+1 Action
If it is Warm, discard a card. If it is an Action card, gain a Swallow. Otherwise +1 Card.
If it is Cool, discard 2 cards. If at least one is a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise +$1.
Heirloom: Coconut
Coconut - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may flip Warm/Cool to return a Swallow you have in play to the supply for +2VP. If you do, trash a Duchy or Estate from the supply.
Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948641732_4e11fdfdeb_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50947838168_af7699d862_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948641732_4e11fdfdeb_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50947838168_af7699d862_b.jpg)Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?QuoteSwallow - $4
Action
+2 Card
+1 Action
If it is Warm, discard a card. If it is a Treasure or Action card, gain a Swallow.
If it is Cool, discard 2 cards. If at least one is a Treasure or Action card, +$2.
Heirloom: CoconutQuoteCoconut - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may flip Warm/Cool to return a Swallow you have in play to the supply for +2VP.
A cross between Fugitive and Magpie. Swallow is certainly weaker when it is Cool, but not overly so. I have the Swallows returning to the supply instead of trashing to allow the following players an opportunity to pick it up and for flavor purposes. The 2 VP gain may be too much, but I was worried 1VP would not be as appealing. Feedback is more than appreciated.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948641732_4e11fdfdeb_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948641732_4e11fdfdeb_b.jpg)
Swallow is too strong. By default, it's a Fugitive that can gain more Fugitives, and you can just leave it that way for the entire game. Fugitive by itself would be a powerful (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), and this is way better than that.
I love the Monty Python reference, though.
I'm struggling to see how the Conditional type is justified, unless a card ever needs to interact with them specifically. Each different card needs its own set of conditions, so the Conditional type isn't really doing one common thing, and there's no unseen rule that needs explaining.But then there's also Fate/Doom cards to bring out Boons/Hexes, even though the cards already mention them.
Looter, for instance, explains not just adding the Ruins to the game, but also 10 per player, shuffled, and only the top one is visible. Players can refer to the rulebook to be reminded of all those unseen extra rules.
Artifacts, by comparison, don't need a type, nor anything with the journey token. You see them mentioned in the card's text, that prompts you to get them out the box, and that's it, no other rules.
Also, you can write which side starts face up on the relevant side of the Condition card itself.
They don't refer to specific Boons or Hexes, though. Giving cards the Conditional type is more analogous to giving cards that give out Artifacts a type.
I just wanted to mention that all of the cards that use a single condition could just instead use the Journey token (other than for theme purposes). Someone pls correct if I'm wrong.Conditions are for everyone, not just one person
Thank you, I totally forgot about that! I'll remove my post.I just wanted to mention that all of the cards that use a single condition could just instead use the Journey token (other than for theme purposes). Someone pls correct if I'm wrong.Conditions are for everyone, not just one person
Garrison - $4
+2 Villagers
You can remove a token from your Villagers to flip Peacetime / Wartime.
If it's Peacetime, +1 Card.
If it's Wartime, remove any number of tokens from your Villagers and each other player discards a card per token removed, then draws a card per each 2 cards discarded (round down).
OK, here's an attempt - it needs some work (see my comments below), but let's see what y'all think of v0.1:
During Peacetime, you're building up your Garrison, and during Wartime, you attack!
(https://i.imgur.com/B8a2S6P.png)QuoteGarrison - $4
+2 Villagers
You can remove a token from your Villagers to flip Peacetime / Wartime.
If it's Peacetime, +1 Card.
If it's Wartime, remove any number of tokens from your Villagers and each other player discards a card per token removed, then draws a card per each 2 cards discarded (round down).
In Peacetime it's a Village+. Often in practice, it will be exactly the same as Village, but if you can find a way to save those Villagers (or get them from elsewhere), you can flip to Wartime and have a Militia like (discard) attack:
Discard 1
Discard 2, draw 1
Discard 3, draw 1
Discard 4, draw 2
Discard 5, draw 2
etc.
You can have an attack more severe than Militia, it will take some time to build up and you don't get any benefit yourself*. To counter that, if do play another Garrison, you could back to Peacetime and use it as a cantrip. (is that enough of a counter?)
And if you do leave it as Wartime, you enables your opponent(s) to have a stronger attack.
Originally, I didn't have the draw clause, but of course that could leave your opponent handless.
However, you could still accomplish this if:
• it's already Wartime
• you have 3 garrisons
• you have 3 actions / villagers to play them
• you start with 3 villagers already
In that scenario you make opponents discard 5, draw 2; then discard 2, draw 1, then discard 1. So probably it needs something to not allow this to happen... Something to sleep on...
1. +1 Card, +2 Villagers is already an insane (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) by itself, imo.While I agree with your assessment of the card, I doubt that +1 Card, +2 Villagers would be overpowered at $5.
There was a village that was, cantrip, +1 Villager; man it's fine, you can argue about, does it need to cost $5, but it's nice. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0)
Fletcher - Action Attack, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
If it's Peaceful, +1 Card.
Each other player discards an Estate (or reveals they can't).
Flip Peaceful/Troubling over.
Bowyer - Action Attack, $5 cost.I started with cantrip lab every other play, so the Condition is like a shared journey token. Not quite interesting enough, so then I went split pile with the bottom half triggering on the other side, play starts with the top bit then changes up later. Then I added the attacks for scouting - you benefit when players can't discard - so you can see which side to leave Peaceful/Troubling with Bowyer to hinder the opponents. Finally I made Bowyer's conditional bonus fit nicely with its attack.
+1 Buy
+ $2
If it's Troubling, choose one: gain a Silver to your hand; or trash a Silver from your hand for + $4.
Each other player discards a Silver (or reveals they can't).
You may flip Peaceful/Troubling over.
1. +1 Card, +2 Villagers is already an insane (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) by itself, imo.While I agree with your assessment of the card, I doubt that +1 Card, +2 Villagers would be overpowered at $5.
Why? Because DXV considered a cantrip Villager Village, i.e. +1 Card +1 Action +1 Villager, and viewed it as $4.5:QuoteThere was a village that was, cantrip, +1 Villager; man it's fine, you can argue about, does it need to cost $5, but it's nice. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0)
1. +1 Card, +2 Villagers is already an insane (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) by itself, imo. This is way too strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).
2. You can pin your opponents by stacking enough of these, which is easy to do with how many Villagers they amass.
1. +1 Card, +2 Villagers is already an insane (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) by itself, imo.While I agree with your assessment of the card, I doubt that +1 Card, +2 Villagers would be overpowered at $5.
Why? Because DXV considered a cantrip Villager Village, i.e. +1 Card +1 Action +1 Villager, and viewed it as $4.5:QuoteThere was a village that was, cantrip, +1 Villager; man it's fine, you can argue about, does it need to cost $5, but it's nice. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0)
I think the handsize attack on Garrison would be better if there was a floor, e.g. opponents discard as many cards as the number of Villagers you spend, but then DtX (perhaps 3 cards). In any case, I think it would still need to cost $5.
1. +1 Card, +2 Villagers is already an insane (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) by itself, imo.While I agree with your assessment of the card, I doubt that +1 Card, +2 Villagers would be overpowered at $5.
Why? Because DXV considered a cantrip Villager Village, i.e. +1 Card +1 Action +1 Villager, and viewed it as $4.5:QuoteThere was a village that was, cantrip, +1 Villager; man it's fine, you can argue about, does it need to cost $5, but it's nice. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0)
2 Villagers is a LOT better than just one.
Garrison - $4
+2 Villagers
You may remove a token from your Villagers to flip Peacetime / Wartime.
If it's Peacetime, +1 Card.
If it's Wartime, you may remove a token from your Villagers. If you do, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
Quote...
Flip Peaceful/Troubling over.
Autumn Harvest(https://i.imgur.com/LHT1eJV.png)
Type: Action-Conditional
Cost: $4
+1 Action
If it is Barren: +2 Cards, discard 2 cards.
If it is Plentiful: +4 Cards, discard 2 cards; each other player draws a card.
-
When you discard this from play, if you haven't already this turn, flip Barren/Plentiful.
Autumn HarvestSo for a big chunk of the game in 2-player, one person will play it with Barren every time and the other player will play it with plentiful every time. I suggest something different for flipping the condition.
Type: Action-Conditional
Cost: $4
+1 Action
If it is Barren: +2 Cards, discard 2 cards.
If it is Plentiful: +4 Cards, discard 2 cards; each other player draws a card.
-
When you discard this from play, if you haven't already this turn, flip Barren/Plentiful.
If both players are running full-deck engines and actually get them firing regularly, that could be the case. But if that doesn't work in your favour (for whichever side of the Condition you land on), then you just omit playing your Autumn Harvest one turn and see if that helps. However, until you get the engines running, both players won't be playing the card every turn. Also, as mentioned in my OP, buying a few of these would likely get in the way of creating an engine and getting it running. I think the flip condition should be okay.Autumn HarvestSo for a big chunk of the game in 2-player, one person will play it with Barren every time and the other player will play it with plentiful every time. I suggest something different for flipping the condition.
Type: Action-Conditional
Cost: $4
+1 Action
If it is Barren: +2 Cards, discard 2 cards.
If it is Plentiful: +4 Cards, discard 2 cards; each other player draws a card.
-
When you discard this from play, if you haven't already this turn, flip Barren/Plentiful.
Autumn HarvestSo for a big chunk of the game in 2-player, one person will play it with Barren every time and the other player will play it with plentiful every time. I suggest something different for flipping the condition.
Type: Action-Conditional
Cost: $4
+1 Action
If it is Barren: +2 Cards, discard 2 cards.
If it is Plentiful: +4 Cards, discard 2 cards; each other player draws a card.
-
When you discard this from play, if you haven't already this turn, flip Barren/Plentiful.
(https://i.imgur.com/QlxR0QB.png) Quote Weatherman | LibraryAdventurer's Weatherman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862248#msg862248), using Rainy/Dry Both of this card's possible effects are pretty strong, especially at the beginning of the game. Drawing before you trash widens the selection and mitigates the hand-reduction of trashing from hand. The optional Mill effect would be useful by itself, and is even better with the extra drawing. That being said, early in the game you will almost always prefer the trashing, and it is rarely going to be much of a burden for your opponent to take it away from you, since buying Treasure early in the game is usually a good option (except maybe at $5, depending what is in the Kingdom). The only reason not to switch off trashing when your opponent has a Weatherman in play is if you have played one of your own, but even then, your opponent could take the trashing and switch it off for you. I don't think this is a huge problem, as the card is pretty strong either way (which also means it is probably not worth forgoing a solid $5 Action or even a Weatherman [if you don't have one] to keep your opponent from trashing one time). More broadly, the "in-games using this" mechanic is an interesting choice. Combined with the Duration I do think it makes it a bit too easy to mess with other player's effect, as the start of your turn is probably one of the times you are least likely to gain a Treasure (compared to, say, the Buy phase or the meat of the Action phase). That being said, I do think it has a lot of potential for a means to flip Conditions. I think a different trigger might work better with Weatherman (like the gain, trashing, or discarding of a Victory card, which would allow players to trigger the flip using Weatherman, and flip it later on when they start greening). I also think flipping with an Treasure on-gain could work with a different (probably non-duration) Conditional, (although it might get a bit annoying when playing online to be prompted every time you buy a Treasure to decide whether or not to flip it). |
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/602aa98c21c15b3b3209d450/d9975c41311491a6e3e3688ca594a93e/image.png) Quote Slipway • $5 • Action - Duration(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/602aa98c21c15b3b3209d450/a203f94fb373829c86ab83b5fc2f1e07/image.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/602aa98c21c15b3b3209d450/bf27cb1728c65f7be00e979dc2244d43/image.png) | spineflu's Slipway (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862255#msg862255), using High Tide/Low Tide. First, I really like High Tide / Low Tide as a Condition. It's a great fit and very much in the spirit I was going for with Conditions. I also like the use of a Seaside theme. Before I discuss the card, there is one correction, as I think there should be a horizontal line before "When you discard this from play..." paragraph; see, e.g., Alchemist, Treasury, Travellers. Slipway itself is quite a potent card. Both the effects it offers are powerful, and it gives two opportunities to get those effects. As a broad generalization, I think one would tend to prefer the Action-into-coins when the card is played (after playing a terminal action you may well want to turn any remaining Action into coins to spend in your imminent Buy phase, while the other effect could both cost you a Treasure and draw dead Action cards), and tend to prefer the Treasure-into-cards at the start of the next turn (where the fact that it does not cost you an Action means that it is functionally a Stables that always draws a Lab, or a Storyteller that treats every Treasure like a Gold). The problem is, there is very little ability to control what you are going to get. Because this flips the Condition on discard, you have to wait until the end of your next turn to flip it, unless there is another High Tide / Low Tide Conditional, or a card that can flip any Condition. The only other possibility (presuming you add the horizontal line as suggested) is if there is a Way (other than Chameleon), which would allow you to play one Slipway for a different effect in order to discard it that turn and flip the Condition. The flip side (no pun intended) of not being able to change the Condition is that, except in a handful of circumstances, you know what the Condition will be. Generally, the only thing that can flip the condition before your Slipway resolves a second time is a Slipway that was played on a previous turn (either by you or your opponent), which you already know about. The only exception (besides those already listed) is if your opponent keeps her Slipway from being discarded using something like Scheme, Improve, or Bonfire. But even knowing what you are going to get, there's a pretty limited amount you can do about it. Unless you have a Royal Seal or Cargo Ship to put discard fodder into your hand, that knowledge is of pretty limited use. In a way, that fits the flavor of the card really well: you can predict the tides well, but you cannot control them, all you can do is watch the tides roll in and out. While you definitely get style points for that, I am not sure it makes the card the most playable. One thing to consider could be cutting the cost to $4, and making the benefit occur "now or at the start of your next turn." If you take the effect immediately your Slipway will discard from play this turn, flipping the Condition sooner. Another option could make the flip either when discarded from play or from your hand not during clean-up. This would allow you to play a Slipway at Low Tide, discard a second Slipway for +$3 and flip the Condition, then get to discard a Treasure for +3 cards the following turn (if no opponent messes with it). |
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50947953178_336c4373ff_b.jpg) Quote Swallow - $4(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50950519872_1c8868ceee_b.jpg) Quote Coconut - $2 | Xen3k's Swallow (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862286#msg862286) and its Heirloom, Coconut (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862286#msg862286) using Warm/Cool Xen3k, your design has a ton of great ideas that I really like. Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten in each other's way a bit and I don't think the result ultimately works. I do appreciate the Monty Python reference that is still very much in line with the game's theme. For example, I love the idea of using an Heirloom to flip a Condition. It separates flipping the Condition from playing the Conditional that uses, but still gives all of the players the capacity to make the flip without them to buy two different cards. However, I don't think it works here. Swallow is clearly a Conditional with a stronger and weaker condition. While I think that is another design element, with a lot of potential, when you combine it with the use of the Heirloom, it makes it too easy for a player who decides not to buy Swallow to "turn off" stronger Warm effect, and there's no incentive not to do so. This is compounded by the fact that the player using Swallow (generally) won't be able to "turn on" until her Buy phase, after the time to play Swallow will tend to have passed. (Note: I don't know if you intended players to be able to use Coconut to flip the Condition without having a Swallow to return, but it's clear to me that's how it works as currently worded.) This would not be such an issue, except I think you may have nerfed this too hard. At it's strongest (in terms of handsize/control), it is still weaker than Fugitive, and each other incarnation is weaker still. Magpie's gainer has basically no disadvantage, while this requires both losing an Action card you could have played and reducing your handsize. When it's Cool, your handsisze drops by 2, which is basically the equivalent of the strongest handsize attacks. Playing 2 (or playing 1 after being hit with Militia) will leave you with a single card in hand (barring any other drawing). That basically leaves the VP gain as the strongest aspect of the card. Adding the trashing element to mitigate the VP gaining is a good call. My only concern is that the return-for-VP-tokens effect is not contingent on the trashing (compare with Triumph, which gains instead of trashes). As I understand it, the reason for tying VP tokens to gaining or trashing is to prevent a state of play where players just keep playing cards to gain VP, which never pushes the game towards the end. Here, once all of the Estates and Duchies are gone the players might have incentive to continuously buy and return Swallows to run up their VP without ever ending the game. This is unlikely, but I could potentially imagine this happening in conjunction with a Penultimate_Province_Rule (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Penultimate_Province_Rule) dilemma. (This is made slightly more likely by the fact that players could not buy Duchies to to go up in VP before buying the second-to-last Provence). I am guessing you might have taken the language from Salt the Earth. While that is not Conditional, the important difference there is that a player will eventually have to start trashing Provinces/Colonies, which does push the game towards a conclusion. I know I have written a lot, and I have pointed out a multiple issues I have with these, but I actually think all of those issues are connected, and these are really close to being a very good pair of cards. |
(https://i.imgur.com/rj2Fthg.png) Quote Garrison - $4 | scolapasta's Garrison (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862461#msg862461) using Peacetime/Wartime Yet another variation on how Conditions turn over--pay to flip. It's a concept I like a lot. In posting the card, spineful suggested someone make a Rabbit Season / Duck Season condition, this feels the most like that; you could imagine players aggressively flipping the Condition back and forth to the one they prefer. In Peacetime, this is the village-iest village; if the purpose of a village is that you get to play extra Action cards, this guarantees that you will get to do so (at least if it stays Peacetime). While you can play Fishing Village the turn before you take an extra action, you can play Garrison on turn 3 and take an extra action on turn 23. This is potentially extremely valuable to certain strategies. In Wartime, it's another outlier, a strong, non-terminal attack. Both versions are substantially weaker if you have to flip the Condition first. If you want to use the Attack and you do not have other terminal Actions to play, the answer is often going to be yes. If you are generally trying to run an engine, it may often make sense to just leave it as Wartime and take the two Villagers over one Villager and a card, or even (depending on what is in your hand) to play the attack and settle for a single villager. I think this presents a lot of interesting and fun choices. |
(https://i.imgur.com/uM3TbBn.png) Quote Fletcher - Action Attack, $3 cost. (https://i.imgur.com/L8yJ9YB.png) Quote Bowyer - Action Attack, $5 cost. | Aquila's split pile of Fletcher (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862469#msg862469) and Bowyer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862469#msg862469), using Peaceful/Troubling A split pile is another interesting approach to Conditions. You can use the first card to flip the Condition, then the second card can be effected by the Condition without flipping it. Making the second optional is another interesting approach. Fletcher is either a cantrip or Lab (a good idea for the top card of a split, as it allows players to take all of them with clogging their decks), while Bowyer is terminal silver, with the possibility to net double money while either gaining or trashing a Silver. Both have card-specific discard attacks. It seems like it was your intention for the two cards to chain-->playing Fletcher while Peaceful for the lab variant followed by Bowyer while Troubling for net $4 gain. That seems a little strong, especially as it may not be hard to play a cantrip Fletcher to flip then a Lab Fletcher to fire (and until you get Bowyer, the order you do that in doesn't matter). That said, Sauna/Avanto can yield quite a bit more (depending on what you buy). I generally like the idea of the discard attacks as scouting to help decide whether to flip the Condition back to Peaceful. However, if Bowyer gets combined with something like Militia, you could end up with only two cards left (or fewer). Just the threat of it might force players to hold on to Copper instead of Silver, which might end up being too punishing and/or slowing the game down too much. |
(https://i.imgur.com/TNtJe7D.png) Quote Rainmaker | Timinou's Rainmaker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862482#msg862482), using Rainy/Dry This is a fairly straightforward card, having one of two reasonably good benefits, then flipping the Condition. Both abilities are fairly playable at any time, so there is not too much worry about what the Condition is. At first glance, these two effects seem to be very different, but they are actually somewhat connected, as both gives you some degree of control over what is on top of your deck. For example, I could see pairing this with terminal drawing; when Rainy, you can put a card that you know won't be drawn dead into the mix, and when Dry, you can play an Action card that would have drawn while otherwise ensuring you get at least some value for the card. (there might be an Action card below that you get anyway, so it's far from perfect). And as Timinou pointed out, the effects can double up to gain then play a card. One concern I have is that I am a little unclear on how Dry works, based on the use of "If...may" and "Otherwise..." in consecutive sentences. After you discard, there are three possibilities: (a) it is an Action card you choose to play twice; (b) it is an Action card you choose not to play twice; (c) it is not an Action card. I'm not sure if "Otherwise" applies and gives you +$2 in situation (b), (c), or both. I presume from the context it is not just (b), but I'm not sure that is totally clear grammatically. My inclination is to give it in both situations, as it makes the choice of whether to play certain Actions more interesting, and strengthens a card I suspect might be a bit weak at $5. One thing you might consider to add an additional strategic element is rearranging the text so the Condition flips before the rest of the card resolves. That way, if you use the Dry ability and discarded another copy of Rainmaker, it would allow you to gain a card and play it. Now, it would re-play Dry, discarding the second card on the pile (and potentially playing it twice), then play Rainy, gaining a different card, then flip back to Dry when the original card finished resolving. While the altered version is strong, it's not too strong, and more than a fair reward for colliding two $5 Actions (one on top of your deck). Plus, you couldn't make it recursive and pile the Rainmakers, as it can never cost less than itself. (Although you could pile Estates this way if you managed to discount Rainmaker and use Inheritance, then play a Rainmaker or Estate when you knew the top cards was a second copy, using each incarnation to gain an Estate and play it twice; still not an unreasonable reward accomplishing such a tricky alignment). |
(https://i.imgur.com/xrMXl1D.png) Quote Autumn Harvest(https://i.imgur.com/LHT1eJV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/FCUQxs5.png) | mathdude's Autumn Harvest (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862583#msg862583), using Barren/Plentiful One last card, and one last variation on how Conditions are flipped (albeit a relatively minor one). Two versions of a sifter, one which doubles as a Lab-variant and gives your opponents cards as well, and the other of which work as a weaker version of Warehouse, costing you a card. At first blush, I shared LibraryAdventurer's concern that the flipping mechanism would result in one player locking up the Plentiful and gaining a huge advantage. But on further consideration, I don't think that's a concern. While Plentiful is a powerful card, it does have some balance, as each time it is played in increases the handsize of the player playing it by one and the handsize of each other player by one. Of course, having six cards out of 8 is significantly better than just taking the top 6 on your deck, but that is to be expected for the person playing the card. The extra cards help the other player, and potentially give them the wherewithal to forego playing their Autumn Harvests. There is another symmetry about the card which I like: each time it is played on Plentiful a player's hand size increases by 1, while each time it is played on Barren the hand decreases by 1. Each opponent's play of a Plentiful Autumn Harvest facilitates a Barren play, while still landing at a 5 card hand. This can be complicated a number of ways. A handsize attack after multiple plays on plentiful could be especially devastating. However, a player could choose to chuck their Autumn Harvests and send the Barren state back to their opponent. Another complication could involve a multi-player game; if three players in a row play Autumn Harvest, the third may have drawn from a prior player's Plentiful and still get to use Plentiful themselves. But even that position would rotate, and with multiple players there is a decent chance one might forego buying Autumn Harvest and be content to glean the Plentiful draws while letting the other players fight over that status and saving her buys for something else. (Conversely, it would also be harder for all the players to play it every turn when there are fewer copies per player). To me, this card looks really strong, but balanced. I also appreciate the seasonal theme's connection to Summertime, even if you've moved on in the year. |
AND THE WINNER IS...
mathdude's Autumn Harvest
This is definitely the card I would be most excited to see in the Kingdom. It's my first time judging, but that seems as good a criteria as I can come up with.
Thanks again everyone for your cards. This was a lot of fun, and definitely gave me a lot of new ideas for using Conditions.
... Side note - are we just running all Fan Mechanics contests in this single thread, or should we be making a new thread for each contest?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50947953178_336c4373ff_b.jpg)QuoteSwallow - $4(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50950519872_1c8868ceee_b.jpg)
Action - Conditional
+1 Card
+1 Action
If it is Warm, discard a card. If it is an Action card, gain a Swallow. Otherwise +1 Card.
If it is Cool, discard 2 cards. If at least one is a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise +$1.
Heirloom: CoconutQuoteCoconut - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may flip Warm/Cool to return a Swallow you have in play to the supply for +2VP. If you do, trash a Duchy or Estate from the supply.
Xen3k's Swallow (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862286#msg862286) and its Heirloom, Coconut (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg862286#msg862286) using Warm/Cool
Xen3k, your design has a ton of great ideas that I really like. Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten in each other's way a bit and I don't think the result ultimately works. I do appreciate the Monty Python reference that is still very much in line with the game's theme.
For example, I love the idea of using an Heirloom to flip a Condition. It separates flipping the Condition from playing the Conditional that uses, but still gives all of the players the capacity to make the flip without them to buy two different cards. However, I don't think it works here. Swallow is clearly a Conditional with a stronger and weaker condition. While I think that is another design element, with a lot of potential, when you combine it with the use of the Heirloom, it makes it too easy for a player who decides not to buy Swallow to "turn off" stronger Warm effect, and there's no incentive not to do so. This is compounded by the fact that the player using Swallow (generally) won't be able to "turn on" until her Buy phase, after the time to play Swallow will tend to have passed.
(Note: I don't know if you intended players to be able to use Coconut to flip the Condition without having a Swallow to return, but it's clear to me that's how it works as currently worded.)
This would not be such an issue, except I think you may have nerfed this too hard. At it's strongest (in terms of handsize/control), it is still weaker than Fugitive, and each other incarnation is weaker still. Magpie's gainer has basically no disadvantage, while this requires both losing an Action card you could have played and reducing your handsize. When it's Cool, your handsisze drops by 2, which is basically the equivalent of the strongest handsize attacks. Playing 2 (or playing 1 after being hit with Militia) will leave you with a single card in hand (barring any other drawing). That basically leaves the VP gain as the strongest aspect of the card.
Adding the trashing element to mitigate the VP gaining is a good call. My only concern is that the return-for-VP-tokens effect is not contingent on the trashing (compare with Triumph, which gains instead of trashes). As I understand it, the reason for tying VP tokens to gaining or trashing is to prevent a state of play where players just keep playing cards to gain VP, which never pushes the game towards the end. Here, once all of the Estates and Duchies are gone the players might have incentive to continuously buy and return Swallows to run up their VP without ever ending the game. This is unlikely, but I could potentially imagine this happening in conjunction with a Penultimate_Province_Rule (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Penultimate_Province_Rule) dilemma. (This is made slightly more likely by the fact that players could not buy Duchies to to go up in VP before buying the second-to-last Provence). I am guessing you might have taken the language from Salt the Earth. While that is not Conditional, the important difference there is that a player will eventually have to start trashing Provinces/Colonies, which does push the game towards a conclusion.
I know I have written a lot, and I have pointed out a multiple issues I have with these, but I actually think all of those issues are connected, and these are really close to being a very good pair of cards.
Testing GroundIt is a very cheap lab (in reality, a lost city, since it's effectively +2 Actions). But you can't spam-buy them. They work well with deck-inspector cards that can check the top cards in your deck and leave some there. They don't work well with discard-sifters, or any type of draw cards, as you could draw this card dead. But playing with 1-per-turn, you likely wouldn't open with 2 of these on a 4/3 split, since the chances of them colliding is much greater than usual (if you drawn neither on turn 3, you're guaranteed to get both on turn 4, since they will either draw together or one will draw the other... if you draw only 1 on turn 3, you have 2/7 chance of drawing the other dead).
Type: Dawn
Cost: $3
+2 Cards
+1 Action
BywayIt is a cantrip Bridge variant - it replaces itself and reduces the cost of cards (so it's really more like a cheap Highway), so you could possibly string a number together. But like other Dawn cards, if drawn dead in the rest of your turn, it's wasted. I also nerfed it by not letting it reduce the cost of Victory cards - not sure if that was needed or not, but at least that made it a little more different from Highway.
Type: Dawn
Cost: $3
+1 Card
-
While this is in play, non-Victory cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0
Just wondering if you have seen Tejayes Morning cards. They are very similar to these.
In order to make them less swingy and less dead-when-drawn-during-turn, Morning cards now have a universal effect in which when you discard a Morning card from your hand during your Cleanup phase, you may reveal it and put it on top of your deck. I won't add this to the card text because then the cards would be too wordy. As long as it's a Morning card, you can do this.
At the start of a player's cleanup phase, they may reveal a Morning card from their hand, set it aside, and add it to their hand before drawing new cards (so if one is drawn during the Action phase, its playable on the next turn); that player will still have 5 cards in hand after drawing (or more, if they have other bonuses like The River's Gift). This can only be done with one Morning card, so if you draw two or more, you'll have to choose which you do this with.
Just wondering if you have seen Tejayes Morning cards. They are very similar to these.
I had the same thought as you, so just spent the last I don't know how many minutes trying to find them.
But eventually, SUCCESS (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg799704#msg799704)!
One idea I liked of there's was this rule:QuoteIn order to make them less swingy and less dead-when-drawn-during-turn, Morning cards now have a universal effect in which when you discard a Morning card from your hand during your Cleanup phase, you may reveal it and put it on top of your deck. I won't add this to the card text because then the cards would be too wordy. As long as it's a Morning card, you can do this.
And then spineflu also had Morning cards in a different contest.
Here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329#msg823329)
And they also had a similar rule:QuoteAt the start of a player's cleanup phase, they may reveal a Morning card from their hand, set it aside, and add it to their hand before drawing new cards (so if one is drawn during the Action phase, its playable on the next turn); that player will still have 5 cards in hand after drawing (or more, if they have other bonuses like The River's Gift). This can only be done with one Morning card, so if you draw two or more, you'll have to choose which you do this with.
P.S. How amazing would it be to have sort of index for that WDC 1-100 thread??
I had spent like 15 minutes trying to find them, so you're not the only one who struggled finding it.Just wondering if you have seen Tejayes Morning cards. They are very similar to these.
I had the same thought as you, so just spent the last I don't know how many minutes trying to find them.
Teapot - Dawn Treasure, $5 cost.Wanting a Treasure in the starting hand isn't usually ideal.
+1 Buy
If it's your Dawn phase, then for the rest of the turn, when you play a Treasure, + $1.Otherwise, + $2.
Ocelot -- $4
Dawn - Night
If it's your Night phase, trash a card you have in play. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand, then +2 Cards.
Rooster - $3
Dawn
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If any cost more than $0, +1 Villager.
If you didn't trash any Estates or Coppers, at the end of your Dawn phase draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
It also allows you to defend against hand-size attacks as playing it and not trashing anything fulfills the "none were Estates or Coppers" clause allowing you to draw up to a 5 card hand at the end of your Dawn phase.
Thanks. I didn't notice that. I'll delete my post.Using one Dawn card per Dawn phaseCouldn't this just be worded like this:
(but allowing Dawn cards that are multiple types to be played as their other types according to the existing rules):
(https://i.imgur.com/1Kwc70Bh.png)QuoteOcelot -- $4
Dawn - Night
If it's your Night phase, trash a card you have in play. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand, then +2 Cards.
It's crepuscular!
Trash a card from your hand. If it's your Dawn Phase, +2 Cards.
The location of the card you trash is different.
Provincial House of Pancakes • $3 • Dawn - Reactionaka PHOP
If you played this from your hand, +1 Card and +1 Buy
When you play an Action card that gives +$, +$1
-
When you discard this other than from play, you may set it aside; at the start of your next turn, play it.
P.S. How amazing would it be to have sort of index for that WDC 1-100 thread??Definitely exists - it's the link to "List of WDC contests" in my signature - each post where a contest starts is linked. EDIT: I moved it over to the forum itself, from the trello.
- bonus points may be given if you help sway my decision to either have Dawn cards be 1-per-turn, or unlimited-per-turn (if I really like your card, but it would only work 1 of these ways).Let me make the argument in favor of unlimited, like Night cards; this is also the argument behind my card in general.
MothsIf you play it in the Dawn phase, it doesn't cost an Action, but it's still playable in your Action phase too.
$2 - Dawn - Action
Trash a card from your hand. If it was a Treasure, +1 Card per $ it would've given if you played it.
Otherwise, gain a Silver.
Meditation
Dawn - $5
You may an Action from your hand three times
(Once per turn)
So it's non-terminal if played in the Dawn Phase (if you start your turn with it). But it's terminal if played in your Action Phase. I've toyed with a few cards that work similar to this for my expansion.QuoteMothsIf you play it in the Dawn phase, it doesn't cost an Action, but it's still playable in your Action phase too.
$2 - Dawn - Action
Trash a card from your hand. If it was a Treasure, +1 Card per $ it would've given if you played it.
Otherwise, gain a Silver.
Do you think it's too strong for $2?
but why are they pink :'(
using the unlimited Dawn cards per turn:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fspq8g6m/Cottage-v1.png)
Using the one Dawn per turn:
(https://i.imgur.com/EXywxIQ.png)
So here's my multiple Dawns idea:
Teapot - Dawn Treasure, $5 cost.
+1 Buy
If it's your Dawn phase, then for the rest of the turn, when you play a Treasure, + $1.Otherwise, + $2.
Using one Dawn card per Dawn phase
(but allowing Dawn cards that are multiple types to be played as their other types according to the existing rules):
(https://i.imgur.com/1Kwc70Bh.png)
Designed with unlimited Dawn plays in mind.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50982738636_aba8df42df_b.jpg)
Designed with unlimited Dawn cards per Dawn phase
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/603945ec48d66563a0e76604/658ee2f537012bd22f670ddeca42bccd/image.png)
Only one Dawn card per turn.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzCs5Z7c/2.png)
Meditation
Dawn - $5
You may an Action from your hand three times
(Once per turn)
Moths
$2 - Dawn - Action
Trash a card from your hand. If it was a Treasure, +1 Card per $ it would've given if you played it.
Otherwise, gain a Silver.
Unlimited Dawn cards per Dawn phase.
(https://i.imgur.com/rqsDMRB.png)
(this one is not an entry it says?)Thats right, changed my post.Only one Dawn card per turn.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzCs5Z7c/2.png)
- Start with a hand of multiple Cottages? Say, 3 Cottages? Topdeck two of them for 2 extra Actions, then draw them again with the 3rd one... then topdeck one of the remaining 2, again! And then draw it again! Start your turn with 6 cards and 4 Actions, weee!
I hope I'm not too late with my submission. For the rule with unlimited Dawn cards per Dawn phase.
(https://i.imgur.com/XUEhmEO.png)
Helps set up the turn you're about to play. Also helps you avoid drawing dead Maids and set them up to be in your hand at the beginning of your next turn.
Threw this together very quickly so i could be part of this competition
THIS CARD USES THE "you can play 1 dawn card each turn" , so you cant Ancient throne an ancient throne.
(https://i.imgur.com/Vxa6DHj.png)
Edit:
(https://i.imgur.com/94yVjOr.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QJ1eCee.png)This should specify "from your hand".
Oops, yeah its supposed to say "non-dawn"
This is what happens when you rush the text of a card in 5 minutes
and should probably specify Night, Action, or Treasure, although being able to trash Curses + Estates via Bonfire might be interesting.(https://i.imgur.com/QJ1eCee.png)This should specify "from your hand".
Oops, yeah its supposed to say "non-dawn"
This is what happens when you rush the text of a card in 5 minutes
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fspq8g6m/Cottage-v1.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | X-tra's Cottage (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863217#msg863217) This is a village of sorts, in the Dawn phase. But as has been highlighted since your original post, it appears isn't not as good as you originally intended, though if you can stack multiples in a hand, it still does have some benefit. On its own, it appears very weak to me, and could definitely be worth $3. It's only when stacked that it gets decent. But then when we switch to the Action phase, it is almost worthless - it either replaces itself with a new card, or it's a simple +2 Cards (which could be okay if you stacked multiple Cottages in your Dawn phase, but still is rather weak). I like that you've incorporated a way to have it not be a fully dead Dawn card (as if it were a straight Dawn, not Dawn-Action), but it doesn't seem like there's enough there. I think with a few tweaks, this could be a fun card, but it's not quite there yet. |
(https://i.imgur.com/EXywxIQ.png) Quote (one card per Dawn phase) | Gubump's Gambling Hall (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863220#msg863220) This just seems either extremely overpowered or very swingy to me. It's effectively an Alt-VP card without being a Victory card. However, the +9VP is huge - it's a Province and Dutchy combined (or just about a Colony), but once it hits, it leaves no dead card in your deck. I'd probably just buy as many of these as I could, with a couple draw cards (like Smithy), and then Treasure cards. So that brings me to a few issues I see with this card... as currently stated, if I drew a hand of Gambling Hall, Smithy, [coppers and estates], I just say "silver", hope to draw one, and can guarantee I'll be able to play it. Is the intention that you can only say an Action card? Or Action or Night? If you can say Treasure cards, then the +9VP needs to significantly be reduced. But if you can't say Treasure cards, then Gambling Hall could be very difficult to activate in some kingdoms. You need either cantrips (and a lot of luck) or village/smithy-type combos. And then it's very swingy as to when/if they will work. I like the overall idea of the card, but it needs some details sorted out, in my opinion. (I may use some modification of it in my expansion, though I will probably allow unlimited Dawn cards, so I will really need to sort out if/how this can work). |
(https://i.imgur.com/rSr3PR5.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | Aquila's Teapot (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863225#msg863225) I like this idea. (I actually have a card with a concept like this already in my expansion-in-progress). I do like the synergy between multiple Teapots - if you get them in your starting hand, you have to decide how many to play in the Dawn phase, and if one or more might be more worthwhile in the Buy phase. It could probably work as an Action-Treasure card (instead of Dawn-Treasure), giving it +1 Action. But then it would end up a little more powerful than what you've designed. I like it, and will plan to play-test it in the future (checking cost and whether the +1 Buy is needed). |
(https://i.imgur.com/1Kwc70Bh.png) Quote (one card per Dawn phase) | emtzalex's Ocelot (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863236#msg863236) I think this card is well-balanced, between the Dawn and Night abilities. I'm not sure where it sits on cost, but $4 is probably right. Keeping it with the one-card-per-Dawn-phase is definitely important, otherwise it's too strong of a filtering card. If I need an extra trashing card in my expansion, I may come back to this idea (though I'm probably not including Night cards, so it will need a little modification - don't worry, that doesn't affect my judging of your card though!) |
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50982738636_aba8df42df_b.jpg) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | Xen3k's Rooster (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863239#msg863239) I think you've got a very well designed card here. It allows for early-game play (even opening purchases, possibly 2 of them though that may be a bit weak), and it has benefits later in the game as well (trashing mid-range cards that are no longer useful and curses). It seems a bit strong that you can play this card, trash a curse (or two), and then draw 2 (or 3) new cards to start your Action phase, though maybe that was your intention. It also lets you play itself, then just draw a new card, which is sort of boring. But overall, it's a clever use of trashing in the Dawn phase. |
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/603945ec48d66563a0e76604/658ee2f537012bd22f670ddeca42bccd/image.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | spineflu's Provincial House of Pancakes (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863255#msg863255) I like the way you've accounted for drawing PHOP "dead" in your turn, and as an added benefit, it can also work well against handsize reduction attacks and even some filtering-type cards. I feel like the card is fairly weak in many kingdoms though, as there are not always decent Action cards with +$ that you'd want to include in your deck. On the other hand, it would be too powerful if it switched to "when you play a treasure card, +$1" or something like that. (Obviously a cost increase would be in order, but then it's also a completely different card). I'm not sure where I sit on this card currently. I like parts of it, but other parts I'm not sure about. so it's probably going to end up in the middle of the pack. |
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJZxtdbF/card.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | Nobody's (unknown) (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863363#msg863363) With Dawn cards inherently giving you +1 Action, they lend very easily to making Village variants. And this is the 2nd of 3 submissions in this contest (or 3rd of 4 if you count Rooster, which becomes a village variant too if you trash the right card). I like that this card is only a Village in the Dawn phase, and has a completely different purpose in your Action phase - it makes use of those +Villagers with setting up a potential large hand. It looks like there could be choices given to this card (either the option to do +Card +Villager *or* remove all Villagers for +2 Cards each... regardless of whether you're in your Dawn or Action phase, where it's just weaker in the Action phase, as well as a choice of discarding only some Villagers). However, I think it's intentional the way you have designed it, and I think it works better that way. It might be too powerful, even at $6 cost if it had one or both of those choices. I don't think I agree with your interpretation of starting your Action phase with exactly 1 Action (though the start of your turn and start of Action phase have pretty much been the same thing in Dominion so far... well, at least one after the other and you can only "return to your Action phase", never "return to the start of your Action phase"). Since I'm adding the Dawn phase in my expansion, I will need to clarify this, and I intend to have the "start of turn" give you 1 Action (and 1 Buy), and if you return to Dawn phase at any point (at least one or two of my cards already do that), you would not lose any Actions you still have, nor would you get a new +1 Action when you start your Action phase. However, regardless of whether the game is played with your interpretation or mine, I think this card still works. Overall, I like the balance, variety, and simplicity in the card. I just wish I was including Villagers in my expansion, because this card just wouldn't work the same without them! |
(https://i.imgur.com/8HTANi2.png) Quote (one card per Dawn phase) | NoMoreFun's Meditation (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863364#msg863364) This is a plain and simple King's Court variant. It costs $2 less and can only be used in your Dawn phase, with cards that are drawn into your starting hand. I think it ends up a bit swingy this way, but cards like King's Court always are (this is just a bit worse). I'm not overly excited by seeing this card, but I'm also not ready to just toss the idea aside. I think this lands middle-of-the-road as well. |
(https://i.imgur.com/0UQOgOV.png) Quote (one or unlimited? not sure) | LibraryAdventurer's Moths (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863365#msg863365) There is definitely something missing in this card's design. Can it be played in both the Dawn or Action phase, with exactly the same results (other than being dead in the Action phase)? Or should it only be a Dawn card? I think it's a very weak trasher (as a baseline, I can trash a copper for no benefit, or trash a silver for 2 cards or a gold for 3 cards... sometimes kingdom-treasures may be slightly better and other times slightly worse). But those +Cards (for losing silver or gold) don't seem very worthwhile, except maybe in the last time through your deck in the game. The alternative, a forced trash to gain a silver, just doesn't seem like a fun card to me, even at only $2 cost. Maybe it doesn't match my playstyle, but I'm not thrilled by it. There's also the issue of wording/clarity, in the "it would have given if you played it". Maybe letting it work like Storyteller, actually playing the card, trashing it, then giving a choice of spending any number of coins for +Cards could make it a bit more exciting? |
(https://i.imgur.com/rqsDMRB.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | alion8me's Morning Village (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863426#msg863426) Here is our final Village variant. It is a very logical, very simple Village that makes appropriate use of the Dawn phase, and gives a decent benefit of playing in the Dawn phase instead of in the Action phase, justifying the extra cost (compared to Village). But even in this simplicity, I really like it. If I was using Villagers in my expansion, I would likely add this card to it exactly as it's currently designed. I have no complaints. |
(https://i.imgur.com/XUEhmEO.png) Quote (unlimited Dawn cards) | Commodore Chuckles's Maid (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863741#msg863741) This is like a Night Watchman, and carries the same cost. Multiples can be played for additional benefit. However, since this lets you put the cards anywhere in your deck (planning your next turn, and spreading out the Maids for multiple future turns), I would possibly say this is stronger, and should therefore cost more. However, the fact that you can't discard Victory cards like Night Watchman probably justifies keeping this at only $3, and it being a dead card if drawn during your turn definitely makes this card a bit weaker. I do like how simple it is, and that it works well to stack multiples. It effectively uses filtering (though without discarding) using the Dawn phase. It looks like a great card for me to add into my expansion! |
(https://i.imgur.com/QJ1eCee.png) Quote (one card per Dawn phase) | fika monster's Ancient Throne (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863758#msg863758) I think this card needs some clarity. Are we allowed to play Treasure or Night cards? If not, it's just a weak Throne Room, which is why it costs $3 instead of $4 (just like the Meditation card above, being a weak King's Court). I think it's way too strong allowing you to play a Treasure twice (then it's like Crown, and would need to cost $4). But if it only plays Actions, then it's a bit boring. |
and these are the other ones (minigames, the lot of them) I came up with:- bonus points may be given if you help sway my decision to either have Dawn cards be 1-per-turn, or unlimited-per-turn (if I really like your card, but it would only work 1 of these ways).Let me make the argument in favor of unlimited, like Night cards; this is also the argument behind my card in general.
You've got a pile of Dawn cards, 10 deep, and they're good. You want the entire pile in your hand. Hands are only 5 cards; if that Dawn card doesn't at the very least replace itself, you're in trouble.
If you can only play one of them AND they don't replace themselves (+1 Card when played from the hand), collision of 3+ Dawn cards is the equivalent of getting hit with a Militia (you're down two cards for that turn).
It needs to replace itself when played from the hand, and to justify them being a pile, they need to be non-terminal.
On top of this, if there's no "set aside-to-play-next-turn" mechanism, running into them midway through your Action phase means you've junked yourself, which either means the effect of them needs to be minimal (to not give lucky draws the game), or Big (to risk junking yourself). The former, why would you buy it? The latter, I don't know that that amount of variance is conducive to Dominion as a game - if you want a random winner, play the coin flip game.
The only way this card type justifies its existence is as minigames - if it just gives vanilla bonuses unconditionally, why isn't it an action card? or treasure? or whatever. It should give a small task you need to complete to get a reward.
Thanks for the feedback. This caught my interest more than I originally expected, and I ended up thinking a lot about it and designing a number of cards. Here is the result: some of my thoughts on the mechanic, as well as the cards I have come up with.
--(I snipped the rest, but there was a lot of good discussion in there!)--
It was also pointed out in the discord that these are basically also Night-Duration cards. Again, probably worth examining whether "pure" Dawn type cards need to exist (although emtzalex makes some interesting points with the dual type cards he posted.)
well judged.
I'm very sorry everyone, but a bunch of stuff has come up in my life and I'm not feeling up to running the contest this week. Perhaps the second-place winner could run it instead?
Ok, now we're looking for Nobody to run the next contest!
(http://i.imgur.com/XQrtfO7.png) (http://i.imgur.com/7yy66OU.png)Alright? So Trade tokens can be used for literally everything- maybe you get Villager tokens for them, or you can trash your whole deck with it, or they give VPs. It´s really up to you. In LastFootnotes expansion, mostly you get one, when you gain a card- but obviously there are many other ways.
Trade Cutter - $4
Action
+1 Buy
+$2
Choose one: +1 Trade; or pay 2 Trade for +2 Cards at the end of this turn.
Depot • $4 • Action
You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $6. If you don't, gain a card costing up to $4.
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Trade token.
Speculator -- $5
Action
+1 Buy
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand. Play any Treasures, then discard the rest (revealed) for +$1 each.
You may pay a Trade token to replay this card. Otherwise, end your Action phase.
-----
When you gain this, +1 Trade.
How much does this cost?
(https://dominioncards.mrhitech.repl.co/storehouse.png)
Yeoman - Action Victory, $6 cost.Gives a reason to keep them, so there's a choice to spend or not spend.
You may spend a Trade token for +3 Cards.
-
Worth 5VP if you have the most Trade tokens (or tied), or 2VP for second most (or tied).
-
When you gain this, take a Trade token per 2 different types you have in play (round up).
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/604636b54808044247b4c922/681f098311066e97a14157646e33b258/image.png)QuoteDepot • $4 • Action
You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $6. If you don't, gain a card costing up to $4.
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Trade token.
(https://imgur.com/qHhkJBe.png)I like this idea. If i understood correctly, the Effect is global? ie, it works for all players
The Goods are a deck of 10 sideways card-shaped objects, like Boons and Hexes. Each time you gain a Foreign Trader, put the next Good face-up in a pile, and its effect remains active until covered. The Goods aren't reshuffled; even if the players somehow manage to gain more than ten total Foreign Traders, the tenth Good remains face-up for the rest of the game.
Something pretty simple:I feel like this is overpriced. Obviously you can save them up, but I feel like this could definitely cost $4, or even $3.
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4ddcxSg/Grand-Ship-v1.png)
That card could cost 1$. It's a Necropolis variant.It's a throne variant. It's not to play a number of cards from your hand, it is to play a card from your hand x many times. Yeah, but very weak.
You can only get the strong effect twice before you have to start paying for it.Tunnel Digger
$3 - Action - Victory
You may spend a trade token to discard up to 3 cards, then draw cards equal to 2 more than you discarded. If you don't, +$1 and you may discard an action card for +1 Trade.
-
When you gain this, +2 Trade.
Cairn
$4 - Action - Victory
You may spend a trade token to discard up to 3 cards, then draw cards equal to 2 more than you discarded. If you don't, +$1 and you may discard a card for +1 Trade.
-
Worth 2VP.
Knew I forgot something! It costs $3.How much does this cost?
(https://dominioncards.mrhitech.repl.co/storehouse.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/604636b54808044247b4c922/681f098311066e97a14157646e33b258/image.png)QuoteDepot • $4 • Action
You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $6. If you don't, gain a card costing up to $4.
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Trade token.
It feels a smidge too good? I think i would reduce its non-trade token gaining to "up to 3$"
Something pretty simple:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnTdvr3X/Grand-Ship-v2.png)
Edit: Made it a little more usable.
IDK how to make it smaller sorry
(https://dominioncards.mrhitech.repl.co/storehouse.png)
I have played many games with the Enterprise fan expansion. I think the trade token mechanic is a really cool idea. I haven't ever entered one of these contests, but seeing how one of my favorite mechanics is the focus of this one, I thought I'd give it a crack.
I love the idea that trade tokens are hard to get. However, if you have only one Enterprise card in your kingdom, basically the only way to get one is to buy another one of that card, making them true one-shot cards. I wanted to try to address that problem, while still making them scarce. Enter the Heirloom. Heirlooms are always in the kingdom with the other card, so you will always have an alternate way to get Trade tokens (aside from just buying another copy of the original card). You also can't stock up on them (you'll get one and like it, mister). I thought it needed to be slowed down in order to maintain the proper scarcity, so it has to go hide on your Tavern mat until recalled for that precious token.
(https://i.imgur.com/1wAAkc3.png)(https://i.imgur.com/S3tah4C.png)
(https://imgur.com/qHhkJBe.png)I like this idea. If i understood correctly, the Effect is global? ie, it works for all players
The Goods are a deck of 10 sideways card-shaped objects, like Boons and Hexes. Each time you gain a Foreign Trader, put the next Good face-up in a pile, and its effect remains active until covered. The Goods aren't reshuffled; even if the players somehow manage to gain more than ten total Foreign Traders, the tenth Good remains face-up for the rest of the game.
If so, it would be a cool Kingdom modifier, that changes it in a landscape like way, but swtiches the way you play
Neat Theme this week!anyfeedback?
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/604636b54808044247b4c922/681f098311066e97a14157646e33b258/image.png)QuoteDepot • $4 • Action
You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $6. If you don't, gain a card costing up to $4.
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Trade token.
It feels a smidge too good? I think i would reduce its non-trade token gaining to "up to 3$"
I disagree. This is a workshop variant, gaining a card up to $4 as the baseline. Workshop costs $3, gains a card up to $4. Most (if not all) variants that also gain a card up to $4, cost $4 with something "extra" (e.g. ironworks gives you a benefit, depending on the type of card you gain). So for that extra initial cost, now you have the ability to spend a trade token to gain a better card.
My initial thought was that the "up to $6" was too good and "up to $5" would actually be sufficient. But it depends on the scarcity and value of the trade tokens - assuming they maintain scarcity (as this card seems to do, getting them only on-gain or on-trash), it's effectively a 1-shot or 2-shot (if you have multiples) gain up to $6 instead of $4, so it seems fair.
Neat Theme this week!anyfeedback?
Neat Theme this week!anyfeedback?
Neat Theme this week!
I hope im not breaking any rules, as im sort of bringing in my own mechanic here: "Ambition". Ambition are like a project that affects all players during the whole game. Combining that with the idea Of trade Tokens seemed cool to me, so i decided to do just that.
Anyway: Heres my submission this week: "governance",
(https://i.imgur.com/FxUfzf5.png)
Its a Royal carriage that you have to earn by cluttering your deck with victory cards: but on the other hand, You start with 4 trade tokens, so all players can Throne two times before they need to do that.
I specificly made It cost 2 Trade tokens, so that its easier to use with other Trade cards, And so that a player cant use a workshop to Empty Estates in a single turn.
I didnt know about edicts or or the guide you linked to: I'll give it a check
I'm not sure why you didn't make this an Edict (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855243#msg855243); You can get rid of the first horizontal line, imo - both of those effects are "how playing the game is changed by this card". I'd see where the text size is at at that point and tweak accordingly; as-is, it's way too small.
Something pretty simple:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnTdvr3X/Grand-Ship-v2.png)
Edit: Made it a little more usable.
I like the improved version - definitely makes it work better (and less like a ruined market). However, I think this card is now strictly better than Royal Carriage. "You may play an Action card from your hand" is the same as "+1 Action" on RC. "+1 Trade" effectively works the same as setting aside the RC on your Tavern Mat (sets up the ability to Throne Room an Action card). And it can stack to TR cards multiple times (play multiple Grand Ships and/or stockpile Trade tokens, compared to playing and setting aside multiple RCs).
However, Grand Ship stays in your deck and can re-activate the +1 Trade quicker than RC (doesn't miss a shuffle). Stacking doesn't require multiples of this card (as long as your deck cycles quick enough) whereas you have to buy multiple RCs to stack the effect. And the Trade token could be used for other benefits if the Kingdom has other cards that could use it (alternatively, gaining Trade tokens from other cards in the Kingdom allows the TR ability on this to be potentially that much stronger). With all this, it would probably need to cost $6, but that's starting to feel very steep for a TR variant.
(https://i.imgur.com/1wAAkc3.png)(https://i.imgur.com/S3tah4C.png)
Welcome to the design contests... I've only recently joined these too. It's a lot of fun. I think you've really found a good balance here, using the heirloom/reserve, to interact with other cards that have Trade tokens. A peddler variant is always fun to work with, to take that card worth "a little more than $4" and see how we can modify it. The occasional +$3 might be too much (+$2 might be enough), but I don't have a feel for how often you would get it, so it's hard to say - it looks like less than once per shuffle, judging by the single heirloom and the reserve mechanic being used. It could be very powerful with a thin deck and/or fast cycling, but very weak otherwise.
(https://i.ibb.co/rwmMDDt/Cartel.png)
Mh. I think the unconditional aspect would actually lead to a pretty neat dynamic.
Suppose your opponent is going for Cartels. They're not going to buy Provinces, which means that you need all eight of them to end the game. This is also the case if your opponent goes for alt VP, but the difference is that alt VP accumulate VP gradually, whereas this is all or nothing, which makes it so being 1 point ahead is as good as 25 Points. This means that you'll essentially always want to 3-pile; buying Provinces is likely to be a waste of money.
Conversely, suppose you are buying Cartels. In this case, you're just waiting for your opponent to start greening, so that they acquire useless victory points and handicap their ability to three-pile. This should make your opponent hesitant to buy the first Province, which means they'll build on their engine instead, which in turn makes Cartel worse because the 3-pile is closer. Given all that, optimal play should be to delay greening on both sides, estimate the point at which Cartel is no longer worth it, and then go green. Alternatively, buy Cartels if you think your opponent estimated incorrectly and bought the first province too early.
If Cartel did say "+X VP, end the game" instead, this would change the dynamic a lot since now you do want to buy Provinces against it. I'm not sure how it plays now, but it feels more similar to other Alt VPs, which I don't like.
ok but like. picture a kc-cartel game. whoever lines theirs up better wins, the end. you take a complex game and reduce it to shuffle luck. Or in games with no gainers, no +buy - three piling might not be on the table, at which point it's whoever can luck into an early $5 wins.
Because the lucky KC-wharf player can still blow their opportunity. Or maybe they lucked into it at the wrong time and don't have their economy up to fully utilize their bounty of cards/buys. Because what the other player does still matters, because there isn't some card saying "i win".ok but like. picture a kc-cartel game. whoever lines theirs up better wins, the end. you take a complex game and reduce it to shuffle luck. Or in games with no gainers, no +buy - three piling might not be on the table, at which point it's whoever can luck into an early $5 wins.
I agree, but how is that different from KC+Wharf? Or even different from a Cartel that ends the game with +20VP? If the support is too strong, it dominates the board and the strategic considerations become trivial.
Since Trade tokens don't help your deck,
Whoa, awesome, ty Nobody.I'd love to see Wonder cards, like the ones the X-tra had.
I'm of two minds about which mechanic I want to judge on - either
• Wonders, a landscape card that can give big rewards, which we'll have to have some deliberation on ground rules for use, since it's been implemented a couple different ways (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855270#msg855270)
OR
• Route tokens, a coin token+mat mechanic that wouldn't require deliberation (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20710.0)
So sound off on which you want to design for, and we'll go based on majority vote on Friday around noon EDT. If you opt for Wonder, toss in what you think the ground rules should be.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQYrbGrV/Great-Wall-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/csPQcpJY/Builder-V1-EN.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/58386f9f0806a642592700d3cb521bea/sanctum_1_3_-_revised.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/2284ac9e9a69b0fa45500b8ea23181e4/build_undercard.png)I know if I were redesigning mine today, the build card criteria would just be "you need to have silver in play". You're using silver anyway, it takes the wonder out of the opening calculus, no kvetching about opportunity cost, really just simplifies everything.
Grand Library - Wonder
4 steps per player
Build: discard a Silver for one step or a Gold for two; you may trash the Treasure for double the number.
Completion: biggest contributors move 2 of their +bonus tokens onto an Action Supply pile, second biggest 1.
Do Wonders have to be communal or can they be individual? The communal Wonders are more interactive but perhaps turn order can become an issue.either is fine, design what you think it should be; it's a pretty amorphous concept (a big project you buy in multiple parts). I'll assume a wonder is communal so please specify if its individual.
Marble -- $4
$2
You may buy a Wonder step.
Step: Gain a Gardens Tier
Completion: If you're a main contributor, at the start of your turn, you may Exile a Victory card from hand to gain an Action card to your hand costing up to $1 more.
Gardens Tier -- $4*
Worth 2VP per 16 cards you have (rounded down).
(This is not in the Supply.)
Of what I saw, there isn't any special rules with the wonders but I've create my wonders with a common rule: The Wonders are available only once the first Victory card is gained.(I bold it because it's important in therm of balance and some people miss it)
Colossus
Each step cost 4 coins.
The wonder is complete when all step are build. One step per player have to be build in order to achieve the completion (4 step at 4 player, 6 steps at 6 players ect...). You can buy any number of steps during the game until the wonder is constructed.
Once the wonder is complete, the players who have the less number of step discard down to two cards and each player gain an Attack card or a Duchy from the supply for each steps they have built.
This is my participation to the challenge :
(I've never post any image here so I hope it will work...)
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/11/k64o.png)QuoteOf what I saw, there isn't any special rules with the wonders but I've create my wonders with a common rule: The Wonders are available only once the first Victory card is gained.QuoteColossus
Each step cost 4 coins.
The wonder is complete when all step are build. One step per player have to be build in order to achieve the completion (4 step at 4 player, 6 steps at 6 players ect...). You can buy any number of steps during the game until the wonder is constructed.
Once the wonder is complete, the players who have the less number of step discard down to two cards and each player gain an Attack card or a Duchy from the supply for each steps they have built.
Great Ziggurat
Step costs: 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8
Step: Gain a card that costs the same as this step.
Completion: Each main contributor, starting with the player who completes the Wonder, takes turns removing a step token and gaining a card of that cost until no step tokens remain.
Do Wonders have to be communal or can they be individual? The communal Wonders are more interactive but perhaps turn order can become an issue.I totaly agree: turn order is become an issue, especialy with cheap wonder with a small number of steps.
This is my participation to the challenge :
(I've never post any image here so I hope it will work...)
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/11/k64o.png)QuoteOf what I saw, there isn't any special rules with the wonders but I've create my wonders with a common rule: The Wonders are available only once the first Victory card is gained.QuoteColossus
Each step cost 4 coins.
The wonder is complete when all step are build. One step per player have to be build in order to achieve the completion (4 step at 4 player, 6 steps at 6 players ect...). You can buy any number of steps during the game until the wonder is constructed.
Once the wonder is complete, the players who have the less number of step discard down to two cards and each player gain an Attack card or a Duchy from the supply for each steps they have built.
If there are no Attack cards in the Kingdom, gaining Duchies might actually hinder your deck depending on when the Wonder gets completed. Perhaps it should let you gain any card costing up to $5 per step you have built?
What happens if there is a tie, e.g. in a 3-player game each player builds one step? Do they all discard down to 2 cards or is everyone immune?
Alright here's my first shot at one of these!I don't know if it's intentional but if only one player is the main contributor, he gain 2 province, two Duchy and a lot of verry good card (and yes, also two copper but it's stil verry strong).
The idea is a communal Wonder that players would likely casually contribute to early and mid game(encouraging a diversity of buys), with the option of a sprint towards a VP explosion (or blocking of said explosion) late game with a bit of effort. Also might lead to some unique endgame considerations.
Each step requires a buy and its cost.QuoteGreat Ziggurat
Step costs: 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8
Step: Gain a card that costs the same as this step.
Completion: Each main contributor, starting with the player who completes the Wonder, takes turns removing a step token and gaining a card of that cost until no step tokens remain.
I was originally thinking maybe just one step at each price point (for a more reasonable reward) but I think this really helps balance it for player 2.
Alright I'm gonna put my stake in this. I've started working on a set of 7, the seven wonders of the ancient world naturally, so apologies for any duplicates. Are seven entries as a set allowed, or should I just limit my entry to one?pick the "best" one as your entry but feel free to post the others; and yeah the steps are where a player-cube would go - please don't consider "the amount of player cubes" as a design constraint though, use as many as you feel you need.
Also a clarification, are the squares on the card meant to be for player cubes? Not sure if that part was explained.
Eldritch Gate
Wonder
$4 Step: Each other player Exiles a Curse from the Supply.
You may Exile a card from your hand.
Completion: Each player may trash an Exiled card per contribution. Then, each player discards all Curses and Coppers from Exile.
Im designing this with the premise that
Players can only Build once per turn
(https://i.imgur.com/F9LSbDF.png)
This will be using the "Builder Card" mechanic from Sanctum to allow contributing to the wonder.
I hope it is alright I just used the example one.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/2284ac9e9a69b0fa45500b8ea23181e4/build_undercard.png)
Number of Steps
2-3 player games: 5
4+ players: 7
To buy a Step, just like Sanctum, you discard the "Build Card" and pay the Step cost ($4 in this case).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51002821140_822a32cdf5_b.jpg)QuoteEldritch Gate
Wonder
$4 Step: Each other player Exiles a Curse from the Supply.
You may Exile a card from your hand.
Completion: Each player may trash an Exiled card per contribution. Then, each player discards all Curses and Coppers from Exile.
So, not sure how balanced or fun this would be, but I wanted to contribute something to this challenge. It is similar to a Coven that lets you Exile something from your hand as well as attack other players without attacking them. Even contributing later on is beneficial as it will still help mitigate the completion attack.
The Wonder:
(https://i.imgur.com/LYGrwKp.png)
The Kingdom card that triggers the inclusion of the Wonder:
(https://i.imgur.com/z89LJRQ.png)
I chose to just put reminder text on the card and explain the concepts here due to space considerations. The Wonder is built in 3 stages. To complete a stage, you must simply do what it says at the bottom of the card for each stage:
Stage 1: At any time during one of your turns, discard 2 Estates.
Stage 2: At any time during one of your turns, discard 2 Sacred Lands (Sacred Lands are the Kingdom pile that triggers the inclusion of a randomly selected Wonder (Great Pyramids is one of them).
Stage 3: At any time during one of your turns, discard 2 Duchies.
The Stages must be completed in order (per player, so if player 1 completes Stage 1, he may next complete Stage 2, but player 2 must still complete Stage 1 before continuing). The completion of Stage 3 by a player means the Wonder is constructed and no more stages can be completed by any players.
A constructed Wonder confers advantages to all players who completed at least one stage. The player the completed the Wonder gets the first advantage ("...you may trash or exile a card from your hand.". Any player who completed exactly 2 Stages gets the second advantage ("...you may trash a card from your hand."). Any player who completed just 1 Stage gets the third advantage ("...you may trash a Treasure card from your hand.").
---
Adding: just to further explain the concept, Wonders are not normal Landscapes in my version (you don't shuffle them in with Events, etc.). They are an extra pile to be included in the game only when "Sacred Lands" is selected for the Kingdom. This triggers a drawing of a number of random Wonders from the Wonders deck to include. You can choose one or two (it's Dominion, you can do whatever you want, really, but 1 or 2 is recommended). I'm showing here an alternate Wonder to show the kinds of things that can be done by tying these to Sacred Lands rather than having them be a normal Landscape on their own, since it's an important part of the design. This is not part of the entry other than to illustrate the design concept:
(https://i.imgur.com/4lMIsTW.png)
This will be using the "Builder Card" mechanic from Sanctum to allow contributing to the wonder.
I hope it is alright I just used the example one.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/2284ac9e9a69b0fa45500b8ea23181e4/build_undercard.png)
Number of Steps
2-3 player games: 5
4+ players: 7
To buy a Step, just like Sanctum, you discard the "Build Card" and pay the Step cost ($4 in this case).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51002821140_822a32cdf5_b.jpg)QuoteEldritch Gate
Wonder
$4 Step: Each other player Exiles a Curse from the Supply.
You may Exile a card from your hand.
Completion: Each player may trash an Exiled card per contribution. Then, each player discards all Curses and Coppers from Exile.
So, not sure how balanced or fun this would be, but I wanted to contribute something to this challenge. It is similar to a Coven that lets you Exile something from your hand as well as attack other players without attacking them. Even contributing later on is beneficial as it will still help mitigate the completion attack.
Is there any reason why you don't use a separation bar instead of an empty line?
(^ I hope this formulation isn't too aggressive, I do not fully master this language)
Btw, I don't fully understand when the wonder is finished
Im designing this with the premise that
Players can only Build once per turn
(https://i.imgur.com/F9LSbDF.png)
does building cost a buy with this? is the contributor bonus ongoing or once with this?
There is no real reason for using a blank line and not a divider other than the example provided HERE (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864710#msg864710). The Wonder is completed when all Steps are completed (all players can contribute) which is dependent on the number of players: 2-3 player games-5 steps &
4+ players: 7 steps.
No problem with the question, I did post that rather hastily and so it may not have been completely clear.
I don't know if it's intentional but if only one player is the main contributor, he gain 2 province, two Duchy and a lot of verry good card (and yes, also two copper but it's stil verry strong).
An other thing (and I think this one isn't intentional) but in a majoity of board, no one want to make the two first steps of this if they are forced to gain Copper.
Yeah! Intended to be very strong if one player can solely win the wonder, but relatively weak if contested.
Ahh, I didn't intend the steps to have to be taken in order? Thought it was more of A Jeopardy situation where you can fill in as you go. That way, the copper buys can be something you do as part of a late rush, or with extra buys midgame if you have decent deck-control that can handle the junk.
i'm gonna call it here; i'll have judging posted tomorrow.Hmmm... I think I have a problem, I don't recieve message here since March 27. (my last message)
i'm gonna call it here; i'll have judging posted tomorrow.Hmmm... I think I have a problem, I don't recieve message here since March 27. (my last message)
i'm gonna call it here; i'll have judging posted tomorrow.Hmmm... I think I have a problem, I don't recieve message here since March 27. (my last message)
This is normal. Judging always seems to take longer than people anticipate.
Ok, nice; thank you for your return.
Colossus - Shael
Steps: 6 (fixed)
doesnt vary with number of playersOk, nice; thank you for your return.
Colossus - Shael
Steps: 6 (fixed)
I have a question: what 6(fixed) mean ?
Spire - mathdude
Steps: 6/player
I don't know why you'd ever not do this - to slow it down so one player can get essentially a cathedral while stockpiling VP chips? Has some significant last player advantage and should probably be reworked.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #6: Spend, spend, spend!
Alright, you've heard of -1 card tokens, you've heard of spending coin for cards, now get ready for spending Actions and Buys!
The theme for this week will be -1 Action and -1 Buy, up to you how you would like to implement it. Straight vanilla bonus or -1 token, you set the rules. You can even include spend for benefit. Be explicit about details. If vanilla, do you go negative at 0, interaction with villagers, etc. If tokens, do they work like the -1 card and coin token, when are they returned, etc.
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples by myself and others:
(https://imgur.com/Sr1Q8Cb.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/Vs2CKrMw/23-Savings.png) (https://imgur.com/1Az3QaI.png)
In my implementation in Steel Foundry for example, your Action count can go negative, and thus you'd need to spend 2 villagers to play another action card, but you are free to implement a "not-less-than-zero" approach. Stock exchange is another from my Industrialization (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619.0) fan expansion. Savings is an implementation by X-Tra. You can read the secret history for Workshop here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=115.0) to see an implementation of -1 Buy that Don X. considered. An example of a token version of the concept can be seen with Aquila's exhausted token here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17079.0), which removes one Action from your pool immediately once you have a non-zero number available. You could alternatively have it instead ignore your next +Action, ala Snowy Village, your choice.
I personally take a liking to well-chosen theme and card art, so card images would be greatly preferred, though of course not required. Feel free to include multiple cards to illustrate your concept further. The contest window will be closed April 8th at 8:00 AM PST, and I will attempt to have the judgement out by that day's end. Good luck and happy fan carding!
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #6: Spend, spend, spend!
Alright, you've heard of -1 card tokens, you've heard of spending coin for cards, now get ready for spending Actions and Buys!
The theme for this week will be -1 Action and -1 Buy, up to you how you would like to implement it. Straight vanilla bonus or -1 token, you set the rules. You can even include spend for benefit. Be explicit about details. If vanilla, do you go negative at 0, interaction with villagers, etc. If tokens, do they work like the -1 card and coin token, when are they returned, etc.
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples by myself and others:
(https://imgur.com/Sr1Q8Cb.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/Vs2CKrMw/23-Savings.png) (https://imgur.com/1Az3QaI.png)
In my implementation in Steel Foundry for example, your Action count can go negative, and thus you'd need to spend 2 villagers to play another action card, but you are free to implement a "not-less-than-zero" approach. Stock exchange is another from my Industrialization (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619.0) fan expansion. Savings is an implementation by X-Tra. You can read the secret history for Workshop here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=115.0) to see an implementation of -1 Buy that Don X. considered. An example of a token version of the concept can be seen with Aquila's exhausted token here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17079.0), which removes one Action from your pool immediately once you have a non-zero number available. You could alternatively have it instead ignore your next +Action, ala Snowy Village, your choice.
I personally take a liking to well-chosen theme and card art, so card images would be greatly preferred, though of course not required. Feel free to include multiple cards to illustrate your concept further. The contest window will be closed April 8th at 8:00 AM PST, and I will attempt to have the judgement out by that day's end. Good luck and happy fan carding!
Question: Has there ever been a ruling on exactly when your Action count resets, whether it's at the end of Clean-up or at the start of your next turn? There's a card with -1 Action that I'm considering that could be played as a reaction on another person's turn, so the count of Actions on other players' turns becomes very relevant here
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #6: Spend, spend, spend!
Alright, you've heard of -1 card tokens, you've heard of spending coin for cards, now get ready for spending Actions and Buys!
The theme for this week will be -1 Action and -1 Buy, up to you how you would like to implement it. Straight vanilla bonus or -1 token, you set the rules. You can even include spend for benefit. Be explicit about details. If vanilla, do you go negative at 0, interaction with villagers, etc. If tokens, do they work like the -1 card and coin token, when are they returned, etc.
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples by myself and others:
(https://imgur.com/Sr1Q8Cb.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/Vs2CKrMw/23-Savings.png) (https://imgur.com/1Az3QaI.png)
In my implementation in Steel Foundry for example, your Action count can go negative, and thus you'd need to spend 2 villagers to play another action card, but you are free to implement a "not-less-than-zero" approach. Stock exchange is another from my Industrialization (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619.0) fan expansion. Savings is an implementation by X-Tra. You can read the secret history for Workshop here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=115.0) to see an implementation of -1 Buy that Don X. considered. An example of a token version of the concept can be seen with Aquila's exhausted token here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17079.0), which removes one Action from your pool immediately once you have a non-zero number available. You could alternatively have it instead ignore your next +Action, ala Snowy Village, your choice.
I personally take a liking to well-chosen theme and card art, so card images would be greatly preferred, though of course not required. Feel free to include multiple cards to illustrate your concept further. The contest window will be closed April 8th at 8:00 AM PST, and I will attempt to have the judgement out by that day's end. Good luck and happy fan carding!
Question: Has there ever been a ruling on exactly when your Action count resets, whether it's at the end of Clean-up or at the start of your next turn? There's a card with -1 Action that I'm considering that could be played as a reaction on another person's turn, so the count of Actions on other players' turns becomes very relevant here
Caravan Guard shows that +1 Action has no effect outside of your turn, so I'd assume the same would be true of -1 Action.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #6: Spend, spend, spend!
Alright, you've heard of -1 card tokens, you've heard of spending coin for cards, now get ready for spending Actions and Buys!
The theme for this week will be -1 Action and -1 Buy, up to you how you would like to implement it. Straight vanilla bonus or -1 token, you set the rules. You can even include spend for benefit. Be explicit about details. If vanilla, do you go negative at 0, interaction with villagers, etc. If tokens, do they work like the -1 card and coin token, when are they returned, etc.
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples by myself and others:
(https://imgur.com/Sr1Q8Cb.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/Vs2CKrMw/23-Savings.png) (https://imgur.com/1Az3QaI.png)
In my implementation in Steel Foundry for example, your Action count can go negative, and thus you'd need to spend 2 villagers to play another action card, but you are free to implement a "not-less-than-zero" approach. Stock exchange is another from my Industrialization (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619.0) fan expansion. Savings is an implementation by X-Tra. You can read the secret history for Workshop here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=115.0) to see an implementation of -1 Buy that Don X. considered. An example of a token version of the concept can be seen with Aquila's exhausted token here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17079.0), which removes one Action from your pool immediately once you have a non-zero number available. You could alternatively have it instead ignore your next +Action, ala Snowy Village, your choice.
I personally take a liking to well-chosen theme and card art, so card images would be greatly preferred, though of course not required. Feel free to include multiple cards to illustrate your concept further. The contest window will be closed April 8th at 8:00 AM PST, and I will attempt to have the judgement out by that day's end. Good luck and happy fan carding!
Question: Has there ever been a ruling on exactly when your Action count resets, whether it's at the end of Clean-up or at the start of your next turn? There's a card with -1 Action that I'm considering that could be played as a reaction on another person's turn, so the count of Actions on other players' turns becomes very relevant here
Caravan Guard shows that +1 Action has no effect outside of your turn, so I'd assume the same would be true of -1 Action.
True, but Caravan Guard explicitly states that +1 Action has no effect, so the question is, is that statement redundant, or is it necessary to prevent you from getting that +1 Action?
Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Textile Mill - Action, $5+ cost.Smithy you can choose to double play, with overpay for Villagers.
+3 Cards
You may take Exhausted. If you do, +2 Cards.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. +1 Villager per $1 overpaid.
None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Poor House has -$, and it has been established that you cannot go below $0 (even though it *could* make sense, since you can play other Action cards with +$ or Treasure cards), and cost-reduction likewise cannot go below $0, so there's already precedent for "no negative amounts"
So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
Think about when you would go below zero. I never stated my card allows you to go below zero once. The rules around my card were "Do what the card says. If you do not have 1 or more actions afterwards, you cannot play another card", just like any other card. If you play a -1 Action card, that means you had 1 action, and were thus allowed to play a card, now having 0, do what the card says, and now have -1. You cannot play another action. It's exactly the same as playing any other terminal. You are not "allowed to go below once and then not again", you are simply allowed to play any action card if you have 1 action available, and if you are at 0 you can't play an action card period. It would be less intuitive if you couldn't play a -1 Action card while having 1 action. And anyway, the only time it matters whether or not you have 0 or -1 is when it comes to how many villagers you need to get back to 1 action. Once again, you are free to implement it however you wish.
DrawbridgeA simple concept. It amounts to having a Bridge that you play as your last Action. It doesn't help with Action-phase Gainers (except in the case of cards like Villa or Cavalry that let you return to your Action phase), but it does make cards cheaper for buying, and also helps with Night-phase gainers
Project
$6
At the start of your Buy phase, you may spend 1 Action for +1 Buy and cards costs 1 less for the remainder of your turn
Legendary HunterIn this case, Actions are not spent on-play but on-buy to reduce its cost. It's like a Hunting Grounds with one more card (but no on-trash benefit), or a Royal Blacksmith without Copper discarding. In a kingdom with lots of extra Actions, you can get the cost down quite a bit
Action
$9*
+5 Cards
-
When you buy this, you may spend any number of Actions to reduce its price by $1 per Action spent
Night MarketIn this case, you spend an Action for benefit on your next turn. It also lets you buy an extra card this turn, as a kind of last-minute buy phase (combined with Black Market, this means we can now buy cards in all three phases!), or to save up to $4 for your next turn. This could've worked almost as well as a Treasure card, but I went with Night in part so that you can make the choice of an extra buy or saving coins after you've used your buys, and to make it un-Counterfeitable and un-Crownable. Plus, next-turn effects feel to me like they belong to Action and Night, but not Buy. It also has a nice effect in games with Priest and Night trashers - coins you gain from trashing with Priest in hand are available to Night Market. The fact that it's not an Action card also has a nice synergy with Drawbridge. Another synergy is with Innovation - you can take advantage of any +$ or +Actions gained from a bought card played with Innovation
Night - Duration
$6
You may spend 1 Action for +1 Buy at the start of your next turn. If you have any unspent $, choose one: buy a card this turn or spend up to $4 for +$1 per $ spent at the start of your next turn
Dude, you explicitly said that Steel Foundry means that you can end up with -1 Action and you just said it again. So according to you you can most definitely go below zero with the Action counter.So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
Think about when you would go below zero. I never stated my card allows you to go below zero once. The rules around my card were "Do what the card says. If you do not have 1 or more actions afterwards, you cannot play another card", just like any other card. If you play a -1 Action card, that means you had 1 action, and were thus allowed to play a card, now having 0, do what the card says, and now have -1. You cannot play another action. It's exactly the same as playing any other terminal. You are not "allowed to go below once and then not again", you are simply allowed to play any action card if you have 1 action available, and if you are at 0 you can't play an action card period. It would be less intuitive if you couldn't play a -1 Action card while having 1 action. And anyway, the only time it matters whether or not you have 0 or -1 is when it comes to how many villagers you need to get back to 1 action. Once again, you are free to implement it however you wish.
Dude, you explicitly said that Steel Foundry means that you can end up with -1 Action and you just said it again. So according to you you can most definitely go below zero with the Action counter.So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
Think about when you would go below zero. I never stated my card allows you to go below zero once. The rules around my card were "Do what the card says. If you do not have 1 or more actions afterwards, you cannot play another card", just like any other card. If you play a -1 Action card, that means you had 1 action, and were thus allowed to play a card, now having 0, do what the card says, and now have -1. You cannot play another action. It's exactly the same as playing any other terminal. You are not "allowed to go below once and then not again", you are simply allowed to play any action card if you have 1 action available, and if you are at 0 you can't play an action card period. It would be less intuitive if you couldn't play a -1 Action card while having 1 action. And anyway, the only time it matters whether or not you have 0 or -1 is when it comes to how many villagers you need to get back to 1 action. Once again, you are free to implement it however you wish.
My point is that this is a total mess rule-wise (gee, the very fact that we have this discussion shows this). It makes far more sense to implement it Storyteller-style as „spend an Action“ which means that you need two Actions to play Steel Foundry.
Spending resources is cool, it is a basic mechanism familiar to anybody who plays Euros. But being able to spend stuff that you don’t have, man, just no. There is no precedent for this in Dominion, it will lead to quite some confusion and it also makes the card itself behave very weird (no idea about why you sting to it, all it achieves is make the card better suited for money).
Dude, you explicitly said that Steel Foundry means that you can end up with -1 Action and you just said it again. So according to you you can most definitely go below zero with the Action counter.So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
Think about when you would go below zero. I never stated my card allows you to go below zero once. The rules around my card were "Do what the card says. If you do not have 1 or more actions afterwards, you cannot play another card", just like any other card. If you play a -1 Action card, that means you had 1 action, and were thus allowed to play a card, now having 0, do what the card says, and now have -1. You cannot play another action. It's exactly the same as playing any other terminal. You are not "allowed to go below once and then not again", you are simply allowed to play any action card if you have 1 action available, and if you are at 0 you can't play an action card period. It would be less intuitive if you couldn't play a -1 Action card while having 1 action. And anyway, the only time it matters whether or not you have 0 or -1 is when it comes to how many villagers you need to get back to 1 action. Once again, you are free to implement it however you wish.
My point is that this is a total mess rule-wise (gee, the very fact that we have this discussion shows this). It makes far more sense to implement it Storyteller-style as „spend an Action“ which means that you need two Actions to play Steel Foundry.
Spending resources is cool, it is a basic mechanism familiar to anybody who plays Euros. But being able to spend stuff that you don’t have, man, just no. There is no precedent for this in Dominion, it will lead to quite some confusion and it also makes the card itself behave very weird (no idea about why you sting to it, all it achieves is make the card better suited for money).
Yes, Steel Foundry does make you end with -1 Action if its the only card you play. What I was countering is your supposition that it only allows you to go negative *once* as if that were a special rule, which you were implying. Why would it make more sense for some Actions to take 2 to play but most to take 1? There's no precedent for that either. And anyway, why are you using precedent to justify what does or doesn't make sense on a competition that's literally about fan mechanics. There's no precedent for anything we do here, by definition. Being able to go negative on a resource is not so outlandish a concept that it doesn't appear in other games. And once again, you aren't spending what you don't have, you are simply following the cards instructions. If you look at my original post, I also have Stock Exchange, which *does* ask you spend Actions, and for *that* card, you can only spend Actions that you have. I agree that for a story-teller type card, you shouldn't be able to spend more than you have. But -1 Action as a vanilla bonus isn't spending anything, it's updating a counter. That's why it doesn't say "Spend an action, you may go negative."
You keep interpreting it as something that it is not, and that's fine, you are free to make your own card that does work the way you want it to. That's the point of this contest, I never said you have to treat -1 Actions the way I did, nor that I was biased to my own implementation. If you submit your story-teller style smithy variant, I will gladly judge it on its merits and not consider the way you decided to implement -1 Actions as any way inferior to my own. At the end of the day, this is a fan card, and a fan card mechanic, and like the English language, their our know rules.
Faustian Dealings
Action - Treasure
+$1
If it is your Action phase +1 Buy. If you have any actions remaining, -1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1.
If it is your Buy phase and you have more than 1 Buy remaining, -1 Buy and +$2.
I would also like to point out that however you choose to implement -Actions, you'll need to consider how they would work with cards that can cause you to play another card, like Vassal. If you go with the "you can not play a card if it would make you go negative", then what happens when Vassal turns over a -Action card and you have no Actions remaining? Does it treat it like a non-Action? Does it go into play but do nothing (because you don't have the Action needed for it)? Or do you make a special rule for those types of situations and say you can play it if you're forced to play it, but you still only have 0 Actions not -1? (And likewise, if you Throned it with only one Action remaining, does it only play it once, because after the first play you're at 0?)
Dude, you explicitly said that Steel Foundry means that you can end up with -1 Action and you just said it again. So according to you you can most definitely go below zero with the Action counter.So your card implies that you can once go under zero with Actions but once you are in the negative realm you cannot play another card with -Actions.None of the 4 basic resources of the game can become negative. It is common-sensical, you can only spend stuff that you have.Actions are a resource in a Dominion that you can spend. It makes absolutely no sense to have negative Actions. You can only spend resources that you actually have.
And you're free to have your cards follow that rule if you wish. As of now, there is no ruling one way or another on whether Actions or Buys can go negative, so you can't really say whether it makes sense or not if there's no precedent. Actions are only a counter after all, and there's nothing inherent to them that demands non-negativity.
Coins also cannot become negative, Debt is a totally different mechanism.
I'm not sure what your concern is, of course none of the 4 basic resources go negative in the base game, that's the entire point of fan mechanics. If it were already part of the game, then we wouldn't be discussing it here. Coins and the like cannot become negative because there are no cards with negative vanilla bonuses, that's the entire point of this contest. And regardless, the possibility of negative actions doesn't mean you can continue to use actions while negative to become even further negative. If you have 0 or less actions, you can't play any actions. Your statement "you can't spend what you don't have" isn't applicable here. None of these fan cards allow you to do that.
Dude, that’s hyperunintuitive.
Spend X Actions is a fine mechanism. -X Actions with some weird „you can go once below zero but once you are you cannot play other -X Action cards“ rule is not.
Think about when you would go below zero. I never stated my card allows you to go below zero once. The rules around my card were "Do what the card says. If you do not have 1 or more actions afterwards, you cannot play another card", just like any other card. If you play a -1 Action card, that means you had 1 action, and were thus allowed to play a card, now having 0, do what the card says, and now have -1. You cannot play another action. It's exactly the same as playing any other terminal. You are not "allowed to go below once and then not again", you are simply allowed to play any action card if you have 1 action available, and if you are at 0 you can't play an action card period. It would be less intuitive if you couldn't play a -1 Action card while having 1 action. And anyway, the only time it matters whether or not you have 0 or -1 is when it comes to how many villagers you need to get back to 1 action. Once again, you are free to implement it however you wish.
My point is that this is a total mess rule-wise (gee, the very fact that we have this discussion shows this). It makes far more sense to implement it Storyteller-style as „spend an Action“ which means that you need two Actions to play Steel Foundry.
Spending resources is cool, it is a basic mechanism familiar to anybody who plays Euros. But being able to spend stuff that you don’t have, man, just no. There is no precedent for this in Dominion, it will lead to quite some confusion and it also makes the card itself behave very weird (no idea about why you sting to it, all it achieves is make the card better suited for money).
Yes, Steel Foundry does make you end with -1 Action if its the only card you play. What I was countering is your supposition that it only allows you to go negative *once* as if that were a special rule, which you were implying. Why would it make more sense for some Actions to take 2 to play but most to take 1? There's no precedent for that either. And anyway, why are you using precedent to justify what does or doesn't make sense on a competition that's literally about fan mechanics. There's no precedent for anything we do here, by definition. Being able to go negative on a resource is not so outlandish a concept that it doesn't appear in other games. And once again, you aren't spending what you don't have, you are simply following the cards instructions. If you look at my original post, I also have Stock Exchange, which *does* ask you spend Actions, and for *that* card, you can only spend Actions that you have. I agree that for a story-teller type card, you shouldn't be able to spend more than you have. But -1 Action as a vanilla bonus isn't spending anything, it's updating a counter. That's why it doesn't say "Spend an action, you may go negative."
You keep interpreting it as something that it is not, and that's fine, you are free to make your own card that does work the way you want it to. That's the point of this contest, I never said you have to treat -1 Actions the way I did, nor that I was biased to my own implementation. If you submit your story-teller style smithy variant, I will gladly judge it on its merits and not consider the way you decided to implement -1 Actions as any way inferior to my own. At the end of the day, this is a fan card, and a fan card mechanic, and like the English language, their our know rules.
Leverage • $5 • Treasure
Cards cost $1 less this turn.
Gain a card costing up to $3. If it is a Victory card, -1 Buy.
Why would it make more sense for some Actions to take 2 to play but most to take 1? There's no precedent for that either. And anyway, why are you using precedent to justify what does or doesn't make sense on a competition that's literally about fan mechanics. There's no precedent for anything we do here, by definition. Being able to go negative on a resource is not so outlandish a concept that it doesn't appear in other games.I totally disagree. None of the boardgame that I know does feature a negative counter of any resource except for VPs.
A simple Workshop variant using -1 Action to allow you bump the gain into the much more lucrative $5 range. You have to actually have the Action to spare, though.
(https://i.imgur.com/pgFB8TO.png)
with the current wording, you cannot choose to gain a card costing up to 4$ if you have played a village before. Is that intended?
(https://i.imgur.com/m9C54tdh.png) | Quote from: Fishwife FISHWIFE -- $3 | |
(https://i.imgur.com/gON9iMKh.png) | Quote from: Townspeople TOWNSPEOPLE -- $4 |
Drawbridge
$6 Treasure
Choose one: +$1, +1 Buy, this turn cards (everywhere) cost $1 less but not less than $0; or -1 Buy, this turn cards everywhere cost $3 less but not less than 0.
(Your Buys can go negative)
Bridgeman
$2 Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+$1
Drawbridge
$4 Treasure
-1 Buy
+$1
If you have at least 1 Buy remaining, then this turn, cards (everywhere) cost $2 less, but not less than $0.
Results!
Very well designed cards everyone! There's not a single card I would describe as lackluster, and with a few minor tweaks I think any of these cards could have been in the number one spot! Very close call, congratulations all! This judgement was so delayed because I had to just spend a whole day thinking about the cards and seeing how they looked on second sight, and then another day for the feedback they all deserved. This is a very tough choice to make but I think I have to go with:
Honorable mentions: Orcs/Elven Village, Faustian Dealings
Runner up: Fishwife/Townspeople
Winner: Craftsman
Congratulations to user DunnoItAll! Seems you do know something after all!
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/606b3caac8d9ed4d8ad4ea95/6a9bf771748bc351ed0bd073f705c69a/image.png)
Card: Leverage
The picture is just some guy though, is that Mr. Leverage?
Banner - Victory Kin, $5 cost.
Worth 1VP per 3 Kins in your deck (round down)
Festival Grounds - Action Kin, $2 cost.
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
-
In games using this, when you gain a 3rd differently named Kin on your turn, you may gain a Chief.
Nothing stops you from playing with 3 or more of the original Kin cards, just too many can lead to analysis paralysis and too much going on. Having 2 opens up a fun interaction between them, just enough, or one can be influential on its own. I've tried to cover a wide variety of different relationships with them; one thing that's somewhat missing is one that completely supports other Kins. I'm working on it. At the least I hope I've got across the feel for compelling diversity and replayability I get with the Kin mechanic.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #7: Next of Kin.
"Kin" is a new card type from the Dynasties expansion by Aquila. Kin cards have a turqoise coloring.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #7: Next of Kin.
"Kin" is a new card type from the Dynasties expansion by Aquila. Kin cards have a turqoise coloring.
Would you like to standardize the custom color for Kin cards? When mathdude hosted a contest using Dawn cards, he gave us the RGB values for the card (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863221#msg863221), so they could all look the same. I realize this is not exactly the same situation, as Aquila created the cards initially.
+1 Action
While this is in play, when you play a Kin card, choose one of the following that you have not chosen this turn: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1; gain a Silver; gain a Horse; trash a card from your hand.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #7: Next of Kin.
"Kin" is a new card type from the Dynasties expansion by Aquila. Kin cards have a turqoise coloring. When a card with the Kin type is selected to be in a kingdom, two other (non-Victory) kingdom cards that were selected to be in the kingdom are randomly chosen to have the "Kin marker" placed under them. These cards are now "Kin" cards also.
The original Kin card can interact with these new cards in whatever way you choose (via being referred to as "Kin" cards in the card text).
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples (by Aquila):
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5ea9eb17bc2b13322c4e4382/5ea9eb5ec2b06a535434b59d/6ad1fe41ef983306136eba50b0ae8869/Kin_Marker.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5ea9eb17bc2b13322c4e4382/5ea9eb5ec2b06a535434b59d/6ad1fe41ef983306136eba50b0ae8869/Kin_Marker.png)QuoteBanner - Victory Kin, $5 cost.
Worth 1VP per 3 Kins in your deck (round down)QuoteFestival Grounds - Action Kin, $2 cost.
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
-
In games using this, when you gain a 3rd differently named Kin on your turn, you may gain a Chief.
I will include Aquila's final note on his mechanic here, too:QuoteNothing stops you from playing with 3 or more of the original Kin cards, just too many can lead to analysis paralysis and too much going on. Having 2 opens up a fun interaction between them, just enough, or one can be influential on its own. I've tried to cover a wide variety of different relationships with them; one thing that's somewhat missing is one that completely supports other Kins. I'm working on it. At the least I hope I've got across the feel for compelling diversity and replayability I get with the Kin mechanic.
If you use the generator and want to use a standard color that is close to the Turqoise Aquila used, I suggest these:
R: 0.2, G: 1.1, B: 1.0
or something like RGB: 0, 240, 235 in a normal graphics program.
This will probably be impossible, but I plan to playtest each entry in at least part of an actual game in Tabletop Simulator. A complete game for each would almost definitely be out of the question, but at least throwing a few turns around should be possible. I plan to ask for feedback from several others and incorporate their thoughts and opinions into my judging process due to my inexperience in judging cards, but I promise I will do my best.
I will close submissions at noon (my time, central US) on the next Sunday of your life. Judging will then be as soon as possible.
Fan Card Mechanic Contest #7: Next of Kin.
"Kin" is a new card type from the Dynasties expansion by Aquila. Kin cards have a turqoise coloring. When a card with the Kin type is selected to be in a kingdom, two other (non-Victory) kingdom cards that were selected to be in the kingdom are randomly chosen to have the "Kin marker" placed under them. These cards are now "Kin" cards also.
The original Kin card can interact with these new cards in whatever way you choose (via being referred to as "Kin" cards in the card text).
Here are some implementations of the concept as examples (by Aquila):
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5ea9eb17bc2b13322c4e4382/5ea9eb5ec2b06a535434b59d/6ad1fe41ef983306136eba50b0ae8869/Kin_Marker.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5ea9eb17bc2b13322c4e4382/5ea9eb5ec2b06a535434b59d/6ad1fe41ef983306136eba50b0ae8869/Kin_Marker.png)QuoteBanner - Victory Kin, $5 cost.
Worth 1VP per 3 Kins in your deck (round down)QuoteFestival Grounds - Action Kin, $2 cost.
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
-
In games using this, when you gain a 3rd differently named Kin on your turn, you may gain a Chief.
I will include Aquila's final note on his mechanic here, too:QuoteNothing stops you from playing with 3 or more of the original Kin cards, just too many can lead to analysis paralysis and too much going on. Having 2 opens up a fun interaction between them, just enough, or one can be influential on its own. I've tried to cover a wide variety of different relationships with them; one thing that's somewhat missing is one that completely supports other Kins. I'm working on it. At the least I hope I've got across the feel for compelling diversity and replayability I get with the Kin mechanic.
If you use the generator and want to use a standard color that is close to the Turqoise Aquila used, I suggest these:
R: 0.2, G: 1.1, B: 1.0
or something like RGB: 0, 240, 235 in a normal graphics program.
This will probably be impossible, but I plan to playtest each entry in at least part of an actual game in Tabletop Simulator. A complete game for each would almost definitely be out of the question, but at least throwing a few turns around should be possible. I plan to ask for feedback from several others and incorporate their thoughts and opinions into my judging process due to my inexperience in judging cards, but I promise I will do my best.
I will close submissions at noon (my time, central US) on the next Sunday of your life. Judging will then be as soon as possible.
To clarify: there are no restrictions on which cards can receive the Kin marker, except that they cannot be Victory cards? E.g., they could be Night or Treasure cards?
$4 - Action - Kin-
+1VP
At the start of Clean-up, you may trash a Kin you would discard from play this turn to gain +1VP per $2 it costs (round down).
Let's start with a cheap one.
(https://i.imgur.com/QsYldDD.png)Quote from: Collector+1 Action
While this is in play, when you play a Kin card, choose one of the following that you have not chosen this turn: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1; gain a Silver; gain a Horse; trash a card from your hand.
On its own, it does nothing (unless you play 2 of them together, but even so, the 1st is useless and the 2nd is still very weak). Its benefit is when you've already got a few of the other Kin cards in your deck - it's a way to enhance them. Imagine playing 2 Collection cards, then 2 or 3 other Kin cards - huge benefits! It only costs $2 because you wouldn't open with it anyway and it's not overly advantageous to have too many of them - could it even cost $1?
I considered removing the "that you have not chosen this turn", I would probably raise it to $3 or even $4, since you could target one of the benefits to be received repeatedly (e.g. if Village was a Kin, you add +1 Card to each, but if Smithy is a Kin, you add +1 Action to each), though that seems too powerful but also too situational. But keeping it the way it is limits its effect in a fair and somewhat balanced way, I believe.
Family ReunionA lab variant which digs specifically for Kin cards, it also has a Reaction that allows you to immediately top-deck any gained Kin cards, which works quite nicely with it's on-play ability too, if gained during your Action phase. I debated making it a Golem variant, but the problem with that is that there's no guarantee that it would reveal Action cards. The Kin marker can't go on Victory cards, but there can be Kin - Victory cards, like Banner in the OP, and what would it mean to "play" a Victory card? Plus, the Kin marker can go on Night cards, and some Night cards wouldn't be very useful if played during your Action phase. So, simply putting them in your hand solves all those issues. This meant that it had to be non-terminal, otherwise any Action cards it drew (and the Kin marker is usually going to be on Action cards, plus I suspect most inherently Kin cards are going to be Actions) would be useless. This way you can play at least one of the cards it draws
Action - Reaction - Kin
$6
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Kin cards. Discard the rest, then put those cards into your hand.
-
When you gain a Kin card, you may reveal this from your hand to put that card onto your deck.
(https://i.imgur.com/4oZ2VuAh.png) | Quote from: Palazzo di Famiglia PALAZZO DI FAMIGLIA (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/32px-Coin6.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/kmEaOBP.png)QuoteFamily ReunionA lab variant which digs specifically for Kin cards, it also has a Reaction that allows you to immediately top-deck any gained Kin cards, which works quite nicely with it's on-play ability too, if gained during your Action phase.
Action - Reaction - Kin
$6
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Kin cards. Discard the rest, then put those cards into your hand.
-
When you gain a Kin card, you may reveal this from your hand to put it onto your deck.
(https://i.imgur.com/kmEaOBP.png)QuoteFamily ReunionA lab variant which digs specifically for Kin cards, it also has a Reaction that allows you to immediately top-deck any gained Kin cards, which works quite nicely with it's on-play ability too, if gained during your Action phase.
Action - Reaction - Kin
$6
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Kin cards. Discard the rest, then put those cards into your hand.
-
When you gain a Kin card, you may reveal this from your hand to put it onto your deck.
Nice. I had a similar idea (also called Family Reunion), but couldn't get it to a place I liked. This seems like a better way to implement it.
I did have one suggestion about wording. The way the reaction is phrased, it sounds like you are putting Family Reunion onto the deck, rather than the card gained. I would suggest "When you gain a Kin card, you may reveal this from your hand to put that card onto your deck." (See Watchtower (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Watchtower) or Sleigh (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sleigh), both of which refer to the card being gained as "that card" on first mention).
The Kin marker can't go on Victory cards, but there can be Kin - Victory cards, like Banner in the OP, and what would it mean to "play" a Victory card?
'Play a Kin' seems like a really useful way to employ the mechanic, and that's largely why I made the two Markers not go under Victory piles, enforcing more interactivity for all other Kins as well. Yet, the existence of Banner made things really inelegant; though I guess a pure Reaction kingdom pile would do the same.
(https://i.imgur.com/4oZ2VuAh.png) Quote from: Palazzo di FamigliaPALAZZO DI FAMIGLIA (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/32px-Coin6.png)
ACTION - KIN - VICTORY
+2 Cards
You may play a Kin from your hand.
Worth 2VP per differently named Kin you have, that you have more copies of than each other player, or tied for most.
'Play a Kin' seems like a really useful way to employ the mechanic, and that's largely why I made the two Markers not go under Victory piles, enforcing more interactivity for all other Kins as well. Yet, the existence of Banner made things really inelegant; though I guess a pure Reaction kingdom pile would do the same.
So, there are 3 options: a rule could be made for 'playing' unplayable cards; or 'play a Kin' phrases like on Palazzo di Famiglia always need to specify Action, Treasure or Night Kins; or Banner and pure Reaction piles should never exist. The first option I suppose is the most elegant. Could they just be discarded if they have no on-play effect? What do you think here?
'Play a Kin' seems like a really useful way to employ the mechanic, and that's largely why I made the two Markers not go under Victory piles, enforcing more interactivity for all other Kins as well. Yet, the existence of Banner made things really inelegant; though I guess a pure Reaction kingdom pile would do the same.
So, there are 3 options: a rule could be made for 'playing' unplayable cards; or 'play a Kin' phrases like on Palazzo di Famiglia always need to specify Action, Treasure or Night Kins; or Banner and pure Reaction piles should never exist. The first option I suppose is the most elegant. Could they just be discarded if they have no on-play effect? What do you think here?
'Play a Kin' seems like a really useful way to employ the mechanic, and that's largely why I made the two Markers not go under Victory piles, enforcing more interactivity for all other Kins as well. Yet, the existence of Banner made things really inelegant; though I guess a pure Reaction kingdom pile would do the same.
So, there are 3 options: a rule could be made for 'playing' unplayable cards; or 'play a Kin' phrases like on Palazzo di Famiglia always need to specify Action, Treasure or Night Kins; or Banner and pure Reaction piles should never exist. The first option I suppose is the most elegant. Could they just be discarded if they have no on-play effect? What do you think here?
So, when I was thinking about it, my thought was that while it could be used to play an Banner or another Kin-Victory card, doing so would not cause anything to happen, and it's overall effect on the game would be nominal. There are a few situations where this might be helpful: you might want to get a Victory card in play so you could trash it using Bonfire. Here, given the importance the Palazzo puts on having Kin cards, that seems like something you would never do (at least with this). There are other ways getting the card out of your had could be advantageous (if you were using a drawto card like Library; if you didn't want it to go back onto your deck from Haunted Woods); that makes this equivalent to discarding the card. But I don't have a problem with card saying "You may discard a Kin card. If it's an Action, Treasure, or Night card, you may play it." That is a little more powerful, but not that much. Also, in the case of the drawto cards, you ultimately end up with the same number of cards in your hand.
Having thought about this a little further, I actually think that the rules as they currently exist would not permit a player to play a Banner using Palazzo di Famiglia. The analogy I would draw here is to gainers. The default rule is that when the effect of a card (or WELP) tells you to "gain a [card]," you must gain that card from the Supply. The only exceptions are where it either expressly tells you to gain the card from somewhere else (e.g. Lurker), or where it tells you to gain a specific card that is not in the Supply (e.g. cards that gain Horses; Pillage). When a card instructs you to gain one amongst a class of cards that includes both cards permitted by the rules and those not, the default rule still applies, and you cannot gain a card from somewhere other than the Supply. So, for example, although Changeling (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Changeling) lets you gain a copy of a card you have in play, if you have a non-Supply card like Imp in play, Changeling cannot gain it.
I would say the same is true with Palazzo di Famiglia. It allows you to play a card with the type "Kin," but that doesn't change the rule that you cannot play Victory cards.
Family Loyalists
Action - Duration - Attack - Kin
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and Kin cards cost $2 less that turn.
Move a Kin marker from one Kingdom pile to another non-Victory, non-Kin Kingdom pile.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Kin, they put their –1 Card token on their deck.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114202819_0d641bdde3_b.jpg)QuoteFamily Loyalists
Action - Duration - Attack - Kin
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and Kin cards cost $2 less that turn.
Move a Kin marker from one Kingdom pile to another non-Victory, non-Kin Kingdom pile.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Kin, they put their –1 Card token on their deck.
Not sure if that is not allowed
Kinslayer - $4
Action - Kin
You may trash a kin from your hand for +3 Cards, +1 Action, +$2
-
In games using this, when you gain a Kin, gain a Kinslayer (that doesn't come with another)
Collection (mathdude)Buffing a Kin by adding +Card can be strong, but doing it only once balances out; the other +bonuses can be similarly strong. However, I see this creating analysis paralysis and tracking issues a lot of the time, which option do you take when, which ones have you already done on each Collection? The premise of tailored buffs to Kins would be nice to get to work, but this could be greatly simplified.
$2 Action - Kin
+1 Action
-
While you have this in play, when you play a Kin, (first?) choose one of the following that you haven't chosen this turn: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; + $1; gain a silver; gain a Horse; trash a card from your hand.
Fratricide (johntgrizzz)This likes Kins that are easily gained, a simple variable quality to employ and a trash-for-benefit achieves it well. Making the 1VP conditional on trashing a card would be completely safe from infinite VP scenarios without much change to its play. And maybe 3 extra VP is too much? With having +1 Action Fratricide itself is easy to gain, so having trashing to thin the deck as well as 4VP outside the deck for $4 on self trash, very favourable over Duchy, makes for a very powerful card.
$4 Action - Kin
+1 Action
+1 VP
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card is Kin, +3 VP.
Sepulchre (Timinou)It likes expensive Kins to trash late game after they have been well used, so the closer involved they are to the best strategy the better. So, it's most interesting when the Kins are not the best strategy, otherwise it's rather scripted. The unconditional +1 VP can create the infinite game scenario too, maybe trashing a Kin should be forced.
$4 - Action - Kin
+1VP
At the start of Clean-up, you may trash a Kin you would discard from play this turn to gain +1VP per $2 it costs (round down).
Family Reunion (mxdata)Kin draw is something I've never felt I cracked. To maximise the $6 investment here, for every 2 other Kins you have you gain one of these, although this needs to appear in hand before they do. If you gain one before 2 others, you're using the Reaction or digging for one important Kin, probably not worth investing $6 in. So it's unreliable and likely expensive.
$6 - Action - Reaction - Kin
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Kin cards. Discard the rest, then put those cards into your hand.
-
When you gain a Kin card, you may reveal this from your hand to put that card onto your deck.
Palazzo di Famiglia (emtzalex)This creates competition to win Kin splits, so if they're easier to add to deck this is more relevant. So this is very hot competition, being a Lab variant that scores highly. Changing the bottom part to a global 'in games using this, +2VP...' would make this far less centralising. It might be nice then, a Triumphal Arch - Obelisk fusion for competitive play.
$6 - Action - Kin - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play a Kin from your hand.
-
Worth 2VP per differently named Kin you have, that you have more copies of than each other player, or tied for most.
Family Loyalists (Xen3k)Very different play, calling for adaptation more than start-of-game analysis. So it will be hard to put with a second original Kin, but no real problem I guess. Piles of your choice, two of which can't be changed each play, cost less for you next turn but a -Card for opponents until then. It's about correctly guessing what opponents need, making them change mind, take the -Card or denying them $2 reduction if they have FLs in play. With the Action needed and self bonus occurring just next turn holding this back from being centralising, I could see this working out.
$4 - Action - Duration - Attack - Kin
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and Kin cards cost $2 less that turn.
Move a Kin marker from one Kingdom pile to another non-Victory, non-Kin Kingdom pile.
-
While you have this in play, when another player plays a Kin, they put their –1 Card token on their deck.
Kinslayer (Mahowrath)Doesn't matter too much what the other Kins are for this, but cheaper is a bit better. With its singular niche forcing itself into the deck, being a junk card otherwise, the question is whether to invest in any Kin pile, avoid them all, or try getting unwanted Kinslayers to trash themselves. If one of the other Kins is very relevant, interesting decisions could be made, and sometimes changing Kin's functions to non-terminal draw is best to save a turn. It's quite good, though the strategic element might be set back a bit by the strict need for lining it up.
$4 - Action - Kin
You may trash a kin from your hand for +3 Cards, +1 Action and +$2.
-
In games using this, when you gain a Kin, gain a Kinslayer (that doesn't come with another).
Thanks DunnoItAll!
As an aside; is there any interest to try to move this thread into a directory format as per a certain other competition? Might be more user friendly.
Otherwise, happy to make the next one on this thread tomorrow
Family Loyalists by Xen3k:
Both my opponent and I felt that this one needed an on-play effect. Delaying the $2 discount is a little unsatisfying and is surprisingly more awkward to plan around than having the discount on the current turn (which is compounded by having to choose the card(s) you are going to target a turn before you will try to buy them).
Moving the Kin markers felt forced and usually unnecessary, in addition to being awkward both in the game sense and physically. In the game sense, you have only one FL in play, you can't just leave your markers where they are, and if you have two in play, you can effectively leave them there but then you either must move both or neither. I think the card has potential, but the awkwardness overshadowed that during our play-testing.
Collection by mathdude:
This one can definitely get out of hand. Generally speaking, you will want to take the bonuses in a certain order most of the time (ie, you might first want to take +1 Card, then next +$1 most turns), but you will surely want to switch that up from time to time. Tracking these things can easily get confusing, especially when you do it differently than you have. I think this is probably a little too cheap at $2, but again, a lot depends on what the other 2 Kin cards are. This one is my favorite in terms of ideas, for sure.
Thanks DunnoItAll!
As an aside; is there any interest to try to move this thread into a directory format as per a certain other competition? Might be more user friendly.
Otherwise, happy to make the next one on this thread tomorrow
In general, it's picking up enough traction for most contests that it might be a good idea to do that.
Alternatively, if there was a mod who could just update the OP and the main title of the thread once per week (when a new contest starts), it could be helpful to have a link in the OP to the start of each contest.
Xen3k´s Trade Cutter (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863902#msg863902)
A well balanced card, but nothing too interesting. You can do more with the mechanic.
spineflu´s Depot (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863904#msg863904)
This is extremely cool. With the trigger, I can imagine, that you can pull off some neat tricks. But even, if it wouldn't had this cool trigger, it would be a fun card.
emtzalex´ Speculator (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863906#msg863906)
Very interesting card, even without the Trade tokens(which make the card even more interesting). However, this looks broken, especially when you draw more than 6 non-Treasure cards in your turn. More than +$6 is just too much.
Convoy: Action, $4
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck and put 2 of them into your hand. You may spend a Gem to play this again.
When you gain this, +1 Gem.
MrHiTech´s Storehouse (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg863998#msg863998)
A very interesting cellar variant. I think it´ll create some fun moments, when you have to guess, how many cards you have to draw, to get the needed. Also, its very nice for advanced players, since you have to know your deck well and have to think about stuff like triggering shuffles. I like it.
Aquila´s Yeoman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864010#msg864010)
I like the mini game, it really creates some tension. However this looks overpowered to me. if you don´t buy any, for the other player, this is as strong as provinces, so you´re almost forced to gain this.
Something_Smart´s Foreign Trader/Goods (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864014#msg864014)
Really cool idea, which creates interesting choices. What is more important? That the other player can´t use the current Good? Or that I get the needed card? Should I use the Trade tokens now? Or do I hope, that I can reveal "Tea"? Unfortunately, I think the Goods are´nt well balanced.
Timinou´s Muster (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864034#msg864034)
Wow, this looks fun. So every player can setup a huge turn twice in the game. It´s a really cool idea and I think, it works out as intended.
DunnoItAll´s Bargaining Chip/Leverage (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864041#msg864041)
I really like the idea of a Heirloom, that gives Trade tokens. I´m also pretty glad, that you removed the Cantrip version. My only problem with this card is, the trigger of the Heirloom. No other Heirloom card refers to its kingdom card. That isn't a real problem, but it just feels weird. I think, it´s just not fun, when you´re forced to buy an explicit card, to use a Heirloom.
X-tra´s Grand Ship (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864044#msg864044)
I like it. Compared to Royal carriage however, this seems to be too strong. I think, it will be really fun to replay an Action card 8 times, but its just too strong and too easy achieved. Yes, it has to collide with the right card, but that´s not enough compensation.
fika monster´s Governance (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864053#msg864053)
Hey, that´s a cool idea. The idea, that you can green earlier, to play Action cards twice is neat. However, I don´t think, you will gain 2 Estates, to replay an Action card. Maybe it would help, if you´d start with one Trade token already. Okay, this already has an use in the end, but that´s not half as interesting as in the beginning.
LibraryAdventurer´s Cairn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864069#msg864069)
Okay, so this something between Cellar and Moat and VPs. I think the card is fine, but does´nt uses the Trade tokens in a too interesting way.
silverspawn´s Cartell (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864121#msg864121)
So this is one of these "You win" cards. I like new win-conditions, but a simple "You win" is hard to implement. There are lots of ways to do it and this looks like one of the cleverer ones. I do´nt think, this is well balanced, but it just influences the game in a boring way. When you go for Cartell, you do´nt have any interesting choices, but just play Cartell as often as possible.
NoMoreFun´s Toymaker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg864131#msg864131)
Another Workshop variant and also a cool one. Tis is a really interesting card, but unfortunately I do´nt see any reason, why you used Trade tokens and not the normal Journey token.
I also struggled with the issue that which cards have the Kin markers drastically changes the power of the card.In hindsight, so have I. Both Banner and Festival Grounds in the contest's introduction like the other Kins to be good in the game they're in, as have others. Most of the designs you posted also do. So this seems to illustrate that the design space for Kins is rather limited.
I also came up with a Kin - Way:Here's a neat space I haven't explored! Extra bonuses (or potentially nerfs) if the selected Actions use the Way. To reason simply, it likes the Kins to be bad, rather than good, so a different kind of interaction is created.
(https://i.imgur.com/V2jMHveh.png)
I kind of like this, as sifting (especially non-terminal sifting) is frequently useful. But if both the Kin markers ended up on Treasures, this would be substantially weakened.
Action Kin, $4 cost.A sort of cheap lab, but you have to choose between using them or the other Kins. Maybe the power level isn't quite there, but the premise I hope is.
+1 Card
+1 Action
At Clean-up, if you have no Kins other than [this] in play, draw an extra card for your next hand.
All of this brings me back to scolapasta's early suggestion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg861604#msg861604) that each contest start with a discussion of the mechanic and how it works. It could also be useful to have a post-contest discussion (something that has happened before). On that note, I have a thought about the Kin mechanic, although I'm not sure if it would be an improvement. What if, instead of putting the Kin marker under random piles, the two piles to receive Kin markers are chosen by players at the beginning of the game.This would certainly help to not just select meaningful Kins, but turn a mechanic currently more suited to solitaire style games into an interactive one. I'll certainly explore this if I revisit Dynasties!
In a two-player game, each player could just select a pile, going in turn order (this could slightly reduce the first-player-advantage, as the second player would be able to choose her pile in reaction to the first player's selection). In a game with 3+ players, each player could select a potential Kin card (again, going in turn order), then the two actual cards could be chosen using the randomizers. This would assure that, if either player was interested in playing the Kin card, at least one of the Kin piles would be useful (at least in a two-player game; in a three-player game, there would be an increased chance of a good card being chosen).