Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Co0kieL0rd on July 23, 2015, 05:05:59 pm
-
Hello everyone!
Maybe some of you wondered what happened to severeal of the cards that I took out of my set Roots and Renewal. For those who care, here's my show space for all the cards that didn't make it into Roots and Renewal or were taken from the set due to redundancy or not fitting in. I'm also going to add new cards that aren't supposed to be in a set here. Please free to discuss or play with my cards.
Click on an image to enlarge.
(http://i.imgur.com/8NZd6sa.png) (http://i.imgur.com/PZUqr30.png) (http://i.imgur.com/lOFJmrR.png) (http://i.imgur.com/5o6wDSa.png) (http://i.imgur.com/3wQpFmU.png) (http://i.imgur.com/XdRfzfR.png) (http://i.imgur.com/LeQtXyG.png) (http://i.imgur.com/qpKmOz0.png) (http://i.imgur.com/FF3NIzk.png) (http://i.imgur.com/fJjnCRX.png) (http://i.imgur.com/FTNmzKl.png) (http://i.imgur.com/eF5ysuR.png) (http://i.imgur.com/sYXeuNU.png) (http://i.imgur.com/7nSUvPb.png) (http://i.imgur.com/c0R0Swi.png) (http://i.imgur.com/DObk3Uo.png) (http://i.imgur.com/MGmQumF.png)
-
My known opinion repeated:
I like Demagogue. It's straightforward and less likely to hit at the beginning of the game, which i think is a plus, especially on a curser you can open with.
Cabal is a very cool idea, but even though hard to do, it's possible to pin an opponent with it, which i don't like.
I also like Draft Horses, and i think they are reasonably priced. Not nearly as strong as they look on first sight.
Mediator is fine. I'm not exactly a fan of mixing tokens, but for Mediator that's basically the card's point. It seems balanced so far, and i like that it uses your own deck.
Routing still feels a bit random to me, and i think Prefect is doing a little too much at once.
Sentinel looks like it could use a little wording clean up, but honestly i have trouble coming up with something...
I think Suburb is fine. It shouldn't be stronger, is my opinion.
I think we should playtest Tollkeeper again. The last game where we did was veeeeery weird.
-
Suburb seems like a decent 3$ card even without the Reaction part (which is obviously not strong enough to make the card worth 4$). Bog Village is a neat idea but I fear that nobody wants to trash Bog Village lest another player plays a Bog Village before you do and thus exploits the trashed Bog Village. Obviously this incentive problem is increasing with the number of players. One way around it might be self-synergy: buy a lot of Bog Villages in order to be able two per turn and thus convert them often enough into quasi-half-Bazaars.
Demagogue, Draft Horses, Mediator, Sentinel and Routing are simply great cards (printed all of them) and when I am gonna print further Dominion cards I will also include Tollkeeper.
-
Suburb seems like a decent 3$ card even without the Reaction part (which is obviously not strong enough to make the card worth 4$). Bog Village is a neat idea but I fear that nobody wants to trash Bog Village lest another player plays a Bog Village before you do and thus exploits the trashed Bog Village. Obviously this incentive problem is increasing with the number of players. One way around it might be self-synergy: buy a lot of Bog Villages in order to be able two per turn and thus convert them often enough into quasi-half-Bazaars.
Demagogue, Draft Horses, Mediator, Sentinel and Routing are simply great cards (printed all of them) and when I am gonna print further Dominion cards I will also include Tollkeeper.
Thanks, that's nice to hear. Bog Village is merely a niche card that is supposed to add more Supply interaction to my set. But I took it out of the set because its functionalities will be covered by my Travellers Petty Lord and Warlord.
-
A while ago I had this idea for a funny Black Market-ish card called Secret Society. I played a few games with it, although probably only one with the recent version that I like best.
(http://i.imgur.com/nZsvJPP.png)
The Secret Society deck used to consist of any action cards costing up to $5 (or $6) but that was way too swingy. With the restriction to 10 $5-cards you can play the card somewhat reliably. Like with Black Market, every player knows from the beginning of the game which cards are in the deck. What the two revealed cards are random each time. Don't take this card too seriously. It's merely a fun card. But if you love Black Market, you should give Secret Society a try.
Bonus points to anyone who knows where this picture is taken from ;)
-
A while ago I had this idea for a funny Black Market-ish card called Secret Society. I played a few games with it, although probably only one with the recent version that I like best.
(http://i.imgur.com/nZsvJPP.png)
The Secret Society deck used to consist of any action cards costing up to $5 (or $6) but that was way too swingy. With the restriction to 10 $5-cards you can play the card somewhat reliably. Like with Black Market, every player knows from the beginning of the game which cards are in the deck. What the two revealed cards are random each time. Don't take this card too seriously. It's merely a fun card. But if you love Black Market, you should give Secret Society a try.
Bonus points to anyone who knows where this picture is taken from ;)
I think the idea is pretty good but, ignoring your caveat of not taking the card seriously, do you think that 3$ is an appropriate price reduction for the risk of playing a moderately (you do know the Secret Society deck and you can select among two cards) random 5$ card? My hunch is that 4$ is more appropriate.
A simple way to playtest whether 3$ is too cheap is obviously to check whether starting with two Secret Societies is OK or too strong.
-
Giving Secret Society a price of $3 is pure intuition. It's a good hint I should open with two Societies in some games to see whether it should rather cost $4. I'm looking forward to it ;)
-
Here are two ideas for some nice non-attack player interaction. I haven't tested these at all but I think they should be fun :)
(http://i.imgur.com/LeQtXyG.png)
Dry Dock is a cheap Wharf that comes with the drawback of giving other players more actions so they can play more Dry Docks (or other terminals) themselves.
(http://i.imgur.com/FTNmzKl.png)
Regal Decree is like a friendly Possession; it lets you utilize another player's deck without allowing you to mess with it (at least not more than e.g. Tribute does). On the contrary, the more Regal Decrees you play, the more you potentially help your opponent. It's especially neat if you fell behind in the deck building and lost the split of some key card. Your opponent got 7 of the Grand Markets? Just play them from their deck! It's the King's Court of the deprived!
I should probably add the clause "When this leaves play, stop resolving it" to Regal Decree to avoid tracking problems with Durations and Reserves.
-
Here are two ideas for some nice non-attack player interaction. I haven't tested these at all but I think they should be fun :)
(http://i.imgur.com/LeQtXyG.png)
Dry Dock is a cheap Wharf that comes with the drawback of giving other players more actions so they can play more Dry Docks (or other terminals) themselves.
(http://i.imgur.com/FTNmzKl.png)
Regal Decree is like a friendly Possession; it lets you utilize another player's deck without allowing you to mess with it (at least not more than e.g. Tribute does). On the contrary, the more Regal Decrees you play, the more you potentially help your opponent. It's especially neat if you fell behind in the deck building and lost the split of some key card. Your opponent got 7 of the Grand Markets? Just play them from their deck! It's the King's Court of the deprived!
I should probably add the clause "When this leaves play, stop resolving it" to Regal Decree to avoid tracking problems with Durations and Reserves.
I'd say that Dry dock is worth $4 even without the drawback. The +buy is a huge part of why Wharf is as strong as it is. As for Regal Decree, its wording is kind of confusing. I would change it to:
Regal Decree:
The player to your left reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals an Action card, which he then sets aside (and discards the others). Choose one: +1 Action; or, play the revealed Action three times, then set it aside again.
When this leaves play, stop resolving the set aside Action and put it into the hand of the player to your left.
Cost: $4
Action
It's pretty wordy now, though, so I might just ban Duration cards.
-
I think it would be better if Regal Decree just set aside the card and discarded it at the end of the turn. Otherwise it's just too much of a benefit to a particular player in games with more than one opponent.
-
Why not just give Regal Decree Band-of-Misfits–like wording?
-
Why not just give Regal Decree Band-of-Misfits–like wording?
I can't believe I didn't think of that, especially when I even made a card before that was a Throne Room/BoM variant like Regal Decree is. So, here's a newly suggested wording, Co0kieL0rd:
Regal Decree:
The player to your left reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals an Action, and discards the revealed cards. Choose one: Play this three times as if it were that Action; or +1 Action. If you chose the former, this is that card until it leaves play.
Cost: $4
Action
-
Two things:
First, i don't know why i never noticed this, but i don't really see why Cabal tells you to trash Turncoat. It implies the Cabal player knows what Turncoat does when trashed, but mostly it just means something else than what it says. It could just say "puts a T on top of their deck." and leave out the detour. If it had players trash cards as part of its attack, that would be different.
Did i ever complain that stacking Cabals can lock out players by always topdecking five Turncoats, letting them draw those on cleanup and repeating this? Unlikely to happen, but here i said it.
As far as "resolving" goes, Royal Carriage counts duration cards as "resolved" once their next-turn effect is set up, so i'd argue that the wording on Regal Decree to "stop resolving them" has no effect on durations (they are allready "resolved").
-
First of all, these ideas for non-attack player interaction are plain brilliant. As all brilliant ideas they look so simple once they are there and you wonder why nobody has yet come up with cards that only do something for you if they also help your opponent. But of course this doesn't mean that they were simple to come up with.
I'd say that Dry dock is worth $4 even without the drawback. The +buy is a huge part of why Wharf is as strong as it is.
Wharf is one of the strongest 5$ cards. Of course you are totally right that the extra buy is not trivial but its absence certainly doesn't justify a price of 4$. Such a card would easily be (one of) the strongest 4$ card(s).
As for Regal Decree, its wording is kind of confusing. I would change it to:
Regal Decree:
The player to your left reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals an Action card, which he then sets aside (and discards the others). Choose one: +1 Action; or, play the revealed Action three times, then set it aside again.
When this leaves play, stop resolving the set aside Action and put it into the hand of the player to your left.
Cost: $4
Action
It's pretty wordy now, though, so I might just ban Duration cards.
For tracking this is definitely better but it comes at the cost of handsize attacks being weaker for the active player. As I doubt that nobody would buy a handsize attack if that can be used against himself via Regal Degree this is probably not a big issue.
-
First of all, these ideas for non-attack player interaction are plain brilliant. As all brilliant ideas they look so simple once they are there and you wonder why nobody has yet come up with cards that only do something for you if they also help your opponent. But of course this doesn't mean that they were simple to come up with.
I'd say that Dry dock is worth $4 even without the drawback. The +buy is a huge part of why Wharf is as strong as it is.
Wharf is one of the strongest 5$ cards. Of course you are totally right that the extra buy is not trivial but its absence certainly doesn't justify a price of 4$. Such a card would easily be (one of) the strongest 4$ card(s).
Thanks man! I also think the on-play effect alone would be too strong for $4 and good for $5. The +buy on top of that is what makes Wharf OP.
Why not just give Regal Decree Band-of-Misfits–like wording?
I can't believe I didn't think of that, especially when I even made a card before that was a Throne Room/BoM variant like Regal Decree is. So, here's a newly suggested wording, Co0kieL0rd:
Regal Decree:
The player to your left reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals an Action, and discards the revealed cards. Choose one: Play this three times as if it were that Action; or +1 Action. If you chose the former, this is that card until it leaves play.
Cost: $4
Action
This looks like it would work but I'm afraid there's most certainly some edge case where this causes problems (as come naturally with this kind of card). I have to think about it but thank you for the suggestion.
As far as "resolving" goes, Royal Carriage counts duration cards as "resolved" once their next-turn effect is set up, so i'd argue that the wording on Regal Decree to "stop resolving them" has no effect on durations (they are allready "resolved").
Well, I think resolving them includes their next turn effect and anything that was initiated by playing the card. Or did Donald say otherwise?
First, i don't know why i never noticed this, but i don't really see why Cabal tells you to trash Turncoat. It implies the Cabal player knows what Turncoat does when trashed, but mostly it just means something else than what it says. It could just say "puts a T on top of their deck." and leave out the detour. If it had players trash cards as part of its attack, that would be different.
Did i ever complain that stacking Cabals can lock out players by always topdecking five Turncoats, letting them draw those on cleanup and repeating this? Unlikely to happen, but here i said it.
When you trash a Turncoat, you always put it on top of your deck. Players should get used to this feature faster when they are instructed by Cabal to trash it. You can argue this wording isn't elegant but I like it. Or is there another issue with it I'm missing?
A Cabal pin has been mentioned at least twice, once even by you (while playtesting, I believe). I think this is very unlikely to ever happen, like a Bureaucrat pin. If it happens more frequently, I'll limit it to other players with 4 or more cards in hand.
-
As far as "resolving" goes, Royal Carriage counts duration cards as "resolved" once their next-turn effect is set up, so i'd argue that the wording on Regal Decree to "stop resolving them" has no effect on durations (they are allready "resolved").
Well, I think resolving them includes their next turn effect and anything that was initiated by playing the card. Or did Donald say otherwise?
The instruction manual says otherwise. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Royal Carriages on Durations until the final turn in which they do stuff.
-
As far as "resolving" goes, Royal Carriage counts duration cards as "resolved" once their next-turn effect is set up, so i'd argue that the wording on Regal Decree to "stop resolving them" has no effect on durations (they are allready "resolved").
Well, I think resolving them includes their next turn effect and anything that was initiated by playing the card. Or did Donald say otherwise?
The instruction manual says otherwise. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Royal Carriages on Durations until the final turn in which they do stuff.
Dangit! Why did he make this so complicated? Anyway, I'm gonna think about a different wording. Your suggestion looks pretty good, though.
-
King's courting an opposing action is quite strong at 4 cost. Might be correct to skip actions entirely on boards with Regal Decree.
-
I think you could make Royal decree a throne room and still have it pretty viable most of the time. The fact that it's using up only one card from your hand is pretty neat, and gives you the same net advantage as king's court (one free action play out of nowhere). Pro is you don't have to connect it with your other actions, cons are you have no control over what kind of stuff you get to play.
The free card to the opponent is unfair to the other opponents, so I'd mercilessly take it away, and I'd even consider streamlining away the choice of +Action. I think the card will probably be good enough without it, and it simplifies a lot the chains you might get when hitting an opponent's Decree - you don't have to remember what Decrees are +Actions and what are Throne rooms. (I'm not sure I'd want it to be possible to hit Decrees at all, since it could be swingy as hell - play one card, hit opponent's Decree, now your card is 4 cards. Hit another Decree, now it's 6 cards, and that's just crazy, and each hit makes it more likely that you'll branch out more, possibly ending up playing each of your opponent's Actions twice, just by playing one Action card. Next play, you hit Secret Chamber. Big deal.)
I really love the idea.
-
I think you could make Royal decree a throne room and still have it pretty viable most of the time. The fact that it's using up only one card from your hand is pretty neat, and gives you the same net advantage as king's court (one free action play out of nowhere). Pro is you don't have to connect it with your other actions, cons are you have no control over what kind of stuff you get to play.
The free card to the opponent is unfair to the other opponents, so I'd mercilessly take it away, and I'd even consider streamlining away the choice of +Action. I think the card will probably be good enough without it, and it simplifies a lot the chains you might get when hitting an opponent's Decree - you don't have to remember what Decrees are +Actions and what are Throne rooms. (I'm not sure I'd want it to be possible to hit Decrees at all, since it could be swingy as hell - play one card, hit opponent's Decree, now your card is 4 cards. Hit another Decree, now it's 6 cards, and that's just crazy, and each hit makes it more likely that you'll branch out more, possibly ending up playing each of your opponent's Actions twice, just by playing one Action card. Next play, you hit Secret Chamber. Big deal.)
I really love the idea.
Thank you, these are all very good points. Following several suggestions, the wording could be as follows:
The player to your left reveals and discards cards from the top of their deck until discarding an Action card other than Regal Decree. You may play this three times as if it was that Action card. If you do, this is that card until it leaves play.
EDIT: Oops, of course I meant to say, you play this three times as if it was that Action card.
-
The new wording looks great! Playing an action from your opponents deck is balanced at 4 and leads to interesting interactions
-
Here's a small update. In games using fan cards that include Looters I like to shuffle my own Ruins cards into the total set of existing Ruins before adding a portion of them to the supply. I just recently made some high-res images for them and here they are:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ep89cOR.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Jc8GNoH.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/zHp6ldJ.jpg)
I've used them a lot and they work nicely. Obviously, most of the time they get trashed anyway but sometimes players can use their effect for a small advantage. Like official Ruins, mine aren't totally equal in power. Starveling's +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) is particularly useful for spiking a hand when needed. Collapsed Tower may just be the best thing in a game with cursers and looters and without trashers. And you can always get rid of Smoldering somehow.
-
Just sharing some insight i think we talked about recently: If it's early enough in the game and you have a spare buy, you can get yourself a Curse with Collapsed Tower in hand just to get rid of it. While that sounds bad at first, it's actually not a worse point swing than trashing an Estate. I'm not sure that's what CL intended, although it's nice to know - especially because it means there's at least this you can do in a game without both Cursers and Ruins. Incidentally, i can't recall playing a game with both against you.
-
On an aesthetic note, shouldn't Collapsed Tower be half-blue/half-brown?
-
On an aesthetic note, shouldn't Collapsed Tower be half-blue/half-brown?
I could neither find nor make a good blue-brown template, unfortunately.
-
On an aesthetic note, shouldn't Collapsed Tower be half-blue/half-brown?
I could neither find nor make a good blue-brown template, unfortunately.
Here ya go!:
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/temp_reac-ruin.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/temp_reac-ruin.jpg.html)
I have a template-making-template set up for quickly putting together any double-type card. If you ever need anything exotic like this, chances are I can quickly get it to you.
-
Oh wow, that's awesome! :D Could you send me this as an xcf file so I can use it in GIMP?
-
Oh wow, that's awesome! :D Could you send me this as an xcf file so I can use it in GIMP?
I made it in PSP7, which I've had for ages. I can't save it to that format from it. Is there another format that would useful?
-
Oh wow, that's awesome! :D Could you send me this as an xcf file so I can use it in GIMP?
I made it in PSP7, which I've had for ages. I can't save it to that format from it. Is there another format that would useful?
I think Gimp cam import PS files. At least it always worked for me.
-
Here it is as a .psd
-
Thank you very much! Here is the new card image:
(http://i.imgur.com/zHp6ldJ.jpg)
-
Here's a small update. In games using fan cards that include Looters I like to shuffle my own Ruins cards into the total set of existing Ruins before adding a portion of them to the supply. I just recently made some high-res images for them and here they are:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ep89cOR.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Jc8GNoH.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/zHp6ldJ.jpg)
I've used them a lot and they work nicely. Obviously, most of the time they get trashed anyway but sometimes players can use their effect for a small advantage. Like official Ruins, mine aren't totally equal in power. Starveling's +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) is particularly useful for spiking a hand when needed. Collapsed Tower may just be the best thing in a game with cursers and looters and without trashers. And you can always get rid of Smoldering somehow.
I like them as they are moderately stronger than normal Ruins without being too strong for junk cards.
-
Here's a pretty ridiculous card I made a while ago. It's meant for people who like swinginess and chaos in Dominion from time to time. It's similar to Black Market but actually fairer because all players have the same probability of revealing any of the 10 cards in the Secret Society deck throughout the whole game. Still it's not a simple card. On the contrary, I think it's one of the hardest cards imaginable to use correctly and it requires a lot of strategic thinking. I hope some of you enjoy it.
Bonus points to the first one to recognizes which show the image is taken from ;)
(http://i.imgur.com/sYXeuNU.png)
-
Gravity Falls?
-
Yes, you get 100 points! Please put the answer in spoiler tags so other people can still guess ;)
-
Newly inspired with Empires, I came up with a Reserve card that gives VP and a Landmark.
(http://i.imgur.com/5o6wDSa.png) (http://i.imgur.com/MGmQumF.png)
Guest of Honor lets you discard junk for VP. To avoid this being too crazy it only works at the beginning of your turn so you usually can't discard more than four cards. This should work well in slogs and combo effectively with cards that increase your handsize at the start of your turn, such as Wharf, Hireling and Expedition. $4 is an arbitrary price point and if it's too good in combination with the above mentioned cards, I might limit the bumber of cards to 4.
Volcano, unlike other Landmarks, doesn't give or take away VP but it might very well destroy some of your Victory cards if you're not careful. I imagine this should warp the endgame in favor of the players who are behind since the leading player on some turns can't end the game without losing too many points. This Landmark makes deck-drawing engines with conventional Victory cards less attractive and favors ways to gain VP tokens.
-
Am i missing something? Guest of Honor gives me 5VP if i discard my hand, right? That said, in games without +Buy, the most i can get out of ANY hand are 6VP (by buying a Province), which makes this card compare too favourably to... well, to any way of making the game proceed at all. I know, Empires more or less ignores the rule that VP-token cards should push the game towards its end with designs like "Chariot Race", but i'd still argue your game should have game progression built in. For example, you could do a "Reserve-Ritual" where you trash a card to get VP equal to its cost, although that obviously wouldn't be incredibly creative.
-
Am i missing something? Guest of Honor gives me 5VP if i discard my hand, right? That said, in games without +Buy, the most i can get out of ANY hand are 6VP (by buying a Province), which makes this card compare too favourably to... well, to any way of making the game proceed at all. I know, Empires more or less ignores the rule that VP-token cards should push the game towards its end with designs like "Chariot Race", but i'd still argue your game should have game progression built in. For example, you could do a "Reserve-Ritual" where you trash a card to get VP equal to its cost, although that obviously wouldn't be incredibly creative.
I was thinking the same. If you buy enough of these to just get 1 in each hand, then you simply discard 4 cards every turn for 4VP, and play one of these. And unlike a Bishop golden deck or something, you can do this very quickly, like starting on turn 5 or so.
-
Am i missing something? Guest of Honor gives me 5VP if i discard my hand, right? That said, in games without +Buy, the most i can get out of ANY hand are 6VP (by buying a Province), which makes this card compare too favourably to... well, to any way of making the game proceed at all. I know, Empires more or less ignores the rule that VP-token cards should push the game towards its end with designs like "Chariot Race", but i'd still argue your game should have game progression built in. For example, you could do a "Reserve-Ritual" where you trash a card to get VP equal to its cost, although that obviously wouldn't be incredibly creative.
Chariot Race, at the very least, gives you $ like Monument does. So although it's not directly pushing the game toward ending, it's indirectly doing so. And any Chariot Race golden deck is eventually going to be foiled by an opponent who builds a deck out of >$3 cards (which they can do in almost any game where your Chariot Race golden deck is possible). Is there any other card in Empires that "ignores" the rule?
Anyway, I agree 100% with your criticism of Guest of Honor.
-
I agree with LFN that Empires handled the VP token really well unlike Guests of Honor which can easily become problematic.
I really like Volcano, though!
-
What if Guest of Honor handed out VP on some other effect:
When you gain a card costing 3 or more, you may call this for +3VP
-
Or how about instead of calling from Tavern Mat, it trashes itself. Hmm, then it functionally turns into a Distant Lands variant.
-
Oh man, you guys are totally right about Guest of Honor. What was I thinking? First of all, I assumed you could usually discard up to 4 cards which is probably already too good for $4. But it's actually up to 5 cards which is even more insane. What if I limited it to 3 cards, though? It's still pretty slow and gives no bonus on your turn, maybe even harms it.
But forget that, I think Volcano is way more interesting anyway. Let's rather talk about that ;)
-
I like volcano and your amendment to guest of honor.
-
Am i missing something? Guest of Honor gives me 5VP if i discard my hand, right? That said, in games without +Buy, the most i can get out of ANY hand are 6VP (by buying a Province), which makes this card compare too favourably to... well, to any way of making the game proceed at all. I know, Empires more or less ignores the rule that VP-token cards should push the game towards its end with designs like "Chariot Race", but i'd still argue your game should have game progression built in. For example, you could do a "Reserve-Ritual" where you trash a card to get VP equal to its cost, although that obviously wouldn't be incredibly creative.
Chariot Race, at the very least, gives you $ like Monument does. So although it's not directly pushing the game toward ending, it's indirectly doing so. And any Chariot Race golden deck is eventually going to be foiled by an opponent who builds a deck out of >$3 cards (which they can do in almost any game where your Chariot Race golden deck is possible). Is there any other card in Empires that "ignores" the rule?
Anyway, I agree 100% with your criticism of Guest of Honor.
Huh, interesting, i never thought about that aspect of Chariot race. I was mostly concerned about golden decks because we recently played one of the recommended kingdoms, where you could pick up multiple Peddlers with Talisman, after making them cheap enough through Charit Race. Obviously, Peddler is an edge case where you can have a really expensive almost-golden deck that's fast and sturdy to set up. But you are right, thinking about it, this won't usually be the case.
I was writing "designs like" because i'm not familiar with all Empires cards. But looking through it, i see that only Haunting Party Wild Hunt and Plunder aren't tied to gaining or trashing, but like Monument both are a lot weaker if you only ever make use of the VP clause. Also i looked through the Landmarks and Events, and you are right - all of these either imply gaining, trashing or are limited in how many tokens they give. So yes, it was probably just that one game with Peddler that made me think this. Clever choice for a recommended kingdom.
-
I'm curious as to whether Volcano will make a game less likely to end on Provinces. In a game where i draw many cards to be able and buy a Province, i am rather likely to draw another one. So maybe i empty the Duchy pile instead while nobody dares to end the game with precious VP in hand? Just wondering, one would need to set up a game like this (without cards that discard or sift) to know.
-
Wild Hunt is tied to gaining Estates!
-
With Volcano, I think you still end up playing the engine if it is the better strategy. If you pursue a weaker strategy because of Volcano, the engine just keeps buying points instead of buying the last Province to end the game. Unless the alternate option competes closely in strength, the engine will just keep buying up points until they have 50%, and then the game has to grind to a finish with either their opponent ending the game on a loss, or the VP bloated Engine deck playing BM until it can afford the last Province without trashing too many VPs. If both players go for the engine because it has the highest win %, then they could end up stuck in a situation where neither can end the game on a win, and both players have to switch to BM and hope they luck into an $8 hand without any VP in it first.
I think figuring out how to play around it could be interesting on a lot of boards, but if this stall out scenario is common, it might make those games painful.
-
With Volcano, I think you still end up playing the engine if it is the better strategy. If you pursue a weaker strategy because of Volcano, the engine just keeps buying points instead of buying the last Province to end the game. Unless the alternate option competes closely in strength, the engine will just keep buying up points until they have 50%, and then the game has to grind to a finish with either their opponent ending the game on a loss, or the VP bloated Engine deck playing BM until it can afford the last Province without trashing too many VPs. If both players go for the engine because it has the highest win %, then they could end up stuck in a situation where neither can end the game on a win, and both players have to switch to BM and hope they luck into an $8 hand without any VP in it first.
I think figuring out how to play around it could be interesting on a lot of boards, but if this stall out scenario is common, it might make those games painful.
I completely agree with everything here. These are my concerns as well.
-
With Volcano, I think you still end up playing the engine if it is the better strategy. If you pursue a weaker strategy because of Volcano, the engine just keeps buying points instead of buying the last Province to end the game. Unless the alternate option competes closely in strength, the engine will just keep buying up points until they have 50%, and then the game has to grind to a finish with either their opponent ending the game on a loss, or the VP bloated Engine deck playing BM until it can afford the last Province without trashing too many VPs. If both players go for the engine because it has the highest win %, then they could end up stuck in a situation where neither can end the game on a win, and both players have to switch to BM and hope they luck into an $8 hand without any VP in it first.
I think figuring out how to play around it could be interesting on a lot of boards, but if this stall out scenario is common, it might make those games painful.
I completely agree with everything here. These are my concerns as well.
I've had the the same thoughts but I'm the more eager to test it and - hopefully - prove them wrong. Volcano essentially expands on an already large pool of cards and Landmarks that provide alternative ways of obtaining VP and would probably have been awful in the early years of Dominion. With the options we have nowadays, I hope this more often leads to interesting and difficult decisions than pure stalling and luck-based games.
-
I think it will be interesting more often than it causes a stall. There are a lot of ways to manipulate your hand, so any engine that has a way to discard cards will have to play to it. There may also be a way to only green on your last turn, which gets around it.
You'll have to see if you think the interesting interactions are good enough to accept the situation on boards with a strong deck-draw engine that needs to green over multiple turns and can't get dead cards out of the hand.
-
Guest of Honor might work as a Gathering card. I was thinking along those lines:
Guest of Honor, $4, Action, Reserve, Gathering
Take 2 VP from the Guest of Honor Supply pile. Put this on your Tavern mat.
At the start of your turn, you may call this, to discard any number of cards; +1 Card and add 1 VP to the Guest of Honor Supply pile per card discarded.
I think it would be interesting to combine these two concepts; the limited number of VP you can take per play should give all players a chance (not only the first player) to reap gathered VP as well as incentivize players to gain multiple copies of Guest of Honor so they can both play and call GoHs each shuffle. I don't think the number of players or turn order is going to be an issue here. But I'm not sure about GoH's power level as it is a very slow card and 2 VP per play isn't much and apart from that it's a semi-terminal Cellar for $4.
-
... we recently played one of the recommended kingdoms, where you could pick up multiple Peddlers with Talisman, after making them cheap enough through Chariot Race. ...
Ooh, that was me, too. XD
I like the idea behind Guest of Honor, but I agree that it needs some tweaking. Perhaps there could be a collaboration to test the newest idea...
And volcano struck me as completely new from the moment of conception -- well, slightly after that, once it was spoken aloud -- and I think there is room to expand on that idea further, but gently
-
... we recently played one of the recommended kingdoms, where you could pick up multiple Peddlers with Talisman, after making them cheap enough through Chariot Race. ...
Ooh, that was me, too. XD
I like the idea behind Guest of Honor, but I agree that it needs some tweaking. Perhaps there could be a collaboration to test the newest idea...
And volcano struck me as completely new from the moment of conception -- well, slightly after that, once it was spoken aloud -- and I think there is room to expand on that idea further, but gently
I get yer message ;) We should play some games with our cards again soon.
-
Any chance you will put up an improved guest of honor soon? I'd like to print it in my next batch.
-
Any chance you will put up an improved guest of honor soon? I'd like to print it in my next batch.
I tested it in its current gathering form and it wasn't very compelling. I don't recommend using it yet.
-
Any chance you will put up an improved guest of honor soon? I'd like to print it in my next batch.
I tested it in its current gathering form and it wasn't very compelling. I don't recommend using it yet.
K thanks! Print it off in my next next batch.
-
Just tead through the entire topic, as I have ignored it thus far, but maybe if one were to go for royal decree, he/she should ignore looters as well. Playing it and getting stuck with, say, ruined village (thus making royal decree a necropolis) would definitely be one of the most annoying things that could happen
-
Just looked at Royal Decree again, and though it isn't exactly political because you can't choose who the benefit happens to, it can give a big advantage to the player on the left of the Royal Decree player. Then I thought of a more neutral version:
Neutral Royal Decree
Cost 4 - Action.
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. Then do this 3 times: Choose one: Resolve one of the revealed action cards or +1 action.
A side effect of this wording is that you can choose +1 Action more than once, but that shouldn't be a problem since the effect needs to be very strong to be worth the advantage you give to the other players (as it is).
-
Just looked at Royal Decree again, and though it isn't exactly political because you can't choose who the benefit happens to, it can give a big advantage to the player on the left of the Royal Decree player. Then I thought of a more neutral version:
Neutral Royal Decree
Cost 4 - Action.
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. Then do this 3 times: Choose one: Resolve one of the revealed action cards or +1 action.
A side effect of this wording is that you can choose +1 Action more than once, but that shouldn't be a problem since the effect needs to be very strong to be worth the advantage you give to the other players (as it is).
That's an interesting idea. I would just change the last clause to "Choose one: resolve one of the revealed action cards three times; or +1 action." Otherwise, Regal Decree would become an optional Crossroads which is not the intention of the card. The +1 Action is merely a consolation for a dud, not meant as a true alternative.
Just tead through the entire topic, as I have ignored it thus far, but maybe if one were to go for royal decree, he/she should ignore looters as well. Playing it and getting stuck with, say, ruined village (thus making royal decree a necropolis) would definitely be one of the most annoying things that could happen
Do you mean it should ignore Ruins when revealing cards from your opponents' decks? I think it absolutely shouldn't. Looters influence a lot of other cards and some of them may become more or less viable with Ruins lying around. Regal Decree is weakened by Ruins, so it's riskier to buy it but you can go for it anyway.
-
Just tead through the entire topic, as I have ignored it thus far, but maybe if one were to go for royal decree, he/she should ignore looters as well. Playing it and getting stuck with, say, ruined village (thus making royal decree a necropolis) would definitely be one of the most annoying things that could happen
Do you mean it should ignore Ruins when revealing cards from your opponents' decks? I think it absolutely shouldn't. Looters influence a lot of other cards and some of them may become more or less viable with Ruins lying around. Regal Decree is weakened by Ruins, so it's riskier to buy it but you can go for it anyway.
That was not the point of my post, it was simply an interesting interaction that I felt was worth pointing out, and I was saying that, in my opinion, the risk wasn't worth the reward. Others might disagree, and that is totally fine. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
-
I think that Regal Degree is too strong. I suggest nerfing it to to a Throne Room:
"Choose a player. He reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing an Action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. Play the revealed Action card twice (this is that card until it leaves play)."
I think that choosing a player gives you more flexibility. I am not sure about the rules but I think that the "this is that card until it leaves play" wording would imply that if you hit a Duration card Regal Degree stays in play. Not sure whether the "resolve" wording implies this as well.
I don't think that the Ruined Village option is strictly necessary. Sure, it hedges against the risk of hitting an Action you don't wanna play but isn't that part of the fun of digging for actions via Herald and Golem?
The main change is changing this from a TR to a KC. You get to Throne a card without having to have the card in your hand but the liability is that the other player draws that very card. So basically both players get a card. OK in 2P games, mildly good in 3+P games.
You could of course argue that there is a downside to Regal Degree, namely the risk of hitting an action you do not necessarily wanna play/throne. But I guess that this is more or less compensated via the free-riding this card provides, i.e. you can buy Regal Degrees instead of expensive Action cards.
-
I think that Regal Degree is too strong. I suggest nerfing it to to a Throne Room:
"Choose a player. He reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing an Action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. Play the revealed Action card twice (this is that card until it leaves play)."
I think that choosing a player gives you more flexibility. I am not sure about the rules but I think that the "this is that card until it leaves play" wording would imply that if you hit a Duration card Regal Degree stays in play. Not sure whether the "resolve" wording implies this as well.
I don't think that the Ruined Village option is strictly necessary. Sure, it hedges against the risk of hitting an Action you don't wanna play but isn't that part of the fun of digging for actions via Herald and Golem?
The main change is changing this from a TR to a KC. You get to Throne a card without having to have the card in your hand but the liability is that the other player draws that very card. So basically both players get a card. OK in 2P games, mildly good in 3+P games.
You could of course argue that there is a downside to Regal Degree, namely the risk of hitting an action you do not necessarily wanna play/throne. But I guess that this is more or less compensated via the free-riding this card provides, i.e. you can buy Regal Degrees instead of expensive Action cards.
Regal Decree is a very swingy card that you play at the risk of it being a total dud. This is why I think the reward should be much higher than usual lest it is unplayable. Compare with Tribute which is already a bad card but unless it hits two actions at least it gives you something. Regal Decree literally gives you nothing if it hits the wrong card. Why would you want a highly inconsistent Throne Room with only a marginal benefit you can't even influence for the same price as a Throne Room?
I prefer the play-it-three-times version because it makes a bigger difference but maybe it should cost $5. I haven't tested it in a long time. Please feel free to play with any version you find appropriate.
-
How can regal decree hit 'nothing' if the opponent keeps drawing until he draws an action card?
In the case where he has no action cards in his deck or when all of his action cards are in his hand? Ok, sure; don't buy the card if that risk is high?
Or am I missing something?
-
I think that Regal Degree is too strong. I suggest nerfing it to to a Throne Room:
"Choose a player. He reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing an Action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. Play the revealed Action card twice (this is that card until it leaves play)."
I think that choosing a player gives you more flexibility. I am not sure about the rules but I think that the "this is that card until it leaves play" wording would imply that if you hit a Duration card Regal Degree stays in play. Not sure whether the "resolve" wording implies this as well.
I don't think that the Ruined Village option is strictly necessary. Sure, it hedges against the risk of hitting an Action you don't wanna play but isn't that part of the fun of digging for actions via Herald and Golem?
The main change is changing this from a TR to a KC. You get to Throne a card without having to have the card in your hand but the liability is that the other player draws that very card. So basically both players get a card. OK in 2P games, mildly good in 3+P games.
You could of course argue that there is a downside to Regal Degree, namely the risk of hitting an action you do not necessarily wanna play/throne. But I guess that this is more or less compensated via the free-riding this card provides, i.e. you can buy Regal Degrees instead of expensive Action cards.
Regal Decree is a very swingy card that you play at the risk of it being a total dud. This is why I think the reward should be much higher than usual lest it is unplayable. Compare with Tribute which is already a bad card but unless it hits two actions at least it gives you something. Regal Decree literally gives you nothing if it hits the wrong card.
I don't get the comparison with Tribute. Tribute reveals cards and provides vanilla bonuses conditional upon what card types have been revealed whereas Regal Degree digs for an action in an opponent's deck and KCs it. The only risk is that you don't know which card you will hit for but you also have that risk with Golem and I wouldn't label Golem bad.
Sure, normally you throne your good actions. But the large majority of actions are incredibly strong when you KC them. All those terminal silvers now provide +6$ and even a lousy 2$ cantrip with a little bonus like Pearl Diver become double Lost Cities when you KC it (OK, the opponent also draws the Pearl Diver).
So while I agree that Regal Degree is swingy I totally disagree with your assessment that it can be a total dud ... except in Ruins games. And even then it doesn't "literally give you nothing". +3 Cards is worth 4$, +3$ is worth around 5$ and +3 Actions is worth around 2$. You seem to seriously underestimate the power of KC combined with even weak actions.
Why would you want a highly inconsistent Throne Room with only a marginal benefit you can't even influence for the same price as a Throne Room?
The dowside is that you don't know which action you will hit whereas the upside is that you can freeride if an opponent goes for expensive actions.
The only problem I see is that the very presence of Regal Degree disincentives to buy Actions in the first place. But that incentive effect is stronger if Regal Degree is a KC instead of a TR variant.
By the way, I like the card immensly. I just fail to see how a KC variant can cost 4$ or 5$.
-
Regal Decree is a very swingy card that you play at the risk of it being a total dud. This is why I think the reward should be much higher than usual lest it is unplayable. Compare with Tribute which is already a bad card but unless it hits two actions at least it gives you something. Regal Decree literally gives you nothing if it hits the wrong card. Why would you want a highly inconsistent Throne Room with only a marginal benefit you can't even influence for the same price as a Throne Room?
Regal Decree is at least as good as Throne Room in my opinion. Unlike with TR, you'll practically never draw Regal Decree without a target. Yes sure, if on turn 3, your opponent has all his actions in hand, then yes. But really, is TR any better on turn 3? The fact that you cannot choose what to resolve with it just barely makes up for the fact you will practically always get something from it. Also, don't forget about the fact that Regal Decree does not cost you that additional card in hand TR takes. The unreliability later weakens it, but on the other hand it's loads better at the start of the game.
What i really don't like about the card is the player interaction. Having your opening buy discarded feels horribly frustrating, and if you go with the other option, putting it in the player's hand, it's just a directed help (which i think is even more obviously unfair). I'm just asking myself, why doesn't this simply reveal cards from your own deck?
-
Okay, Regal Decree is probably too strong, underpriced and difficult to design and balance well. I think I had a game with it where it was not good (but no Ruins involved) and my opinion got warped by that experience. It might be okay at $5 and should probably be less political in games with 3+ players but there are so many ways to change the card. I'm glad you like the card, tristan, but I don't know what's the best way to change it and it's currently at a very low priority since it's not part of any of my sets. When I'm working on Dominion cards, there are lots of things that are more important to me right now. Regal Decree is particularly awkward since it's so hard to balance. But I encourage you to play with the card in any version that you like and you think works well. I'm happy to hear how it performed :)
-
Here's another version/suggestion:
Royal Decree
$4 (or $5?) cost - Action
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. You may choose one of the revealed action cards and resolve it three times. If you don't, +1 Action and each other player discards their revealed action card.
I added the last part because it would really suck for the person who played the card if they gave another player a significant benefit when he just gets +1 Action. Like if the revealed card was a Forager and you don't want to be forced to trash the province in your hand.
-
Here's another version/suggestion:
Royal Decree
$4 (or $5?) cost - Action
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. You may choose one of the revealed action cards and resolve it three times. If you don't, +1 Action and each other player discards their revealed action card.
I added the last part because it would really suck for the person who played the card if they gave another player a significant benefit when he just gets +1 Action. Like if the revealed card was a Forager and you don't want to be forced to trash the province in your hand.
I think I like thsi version best.
-
Here's another version/suggestion:
Royal Decree
$4 (or $5?) cost - Action
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an action card. They put it into their hand and discard the rest. You may choose one of the revealed action cards and resolve it three times. If you don't, +1 Action and each other player discards their revealed action card.
I added the last part because it would really suck for the person who played the card if they gave another player a significant benefit when he just gets +1 Action. Like if the revealed card was a Forager and you don't want to be forced to trash the province in your hand.
I think I like thsi version best.
I think it's excessive. I agree with the other comments that you seem to be devalueing how good it is to play an action card 3 times. Even for a bad action, 3 times makes it pretty darn good. Choosing to take +1 action instead is going to be so rare that it doesn't seem worth it to have on the card. Yes, if you hit a Chapel or something then it will be unfortunate for you. But that's part of the luck of the card. This card is a whole lot like Golem that finds 3 actions instead of 2. And it costs less.
-
I'll test it at $5 cost then.
-
So, this is boring old Asper, but is it out of the question to do something like this for $5?
"Reveal cards from the top of your deck until revealing an Action card. Play it twice."
Edit: Gendo's post about Golem is really noteworthy. Golem reduces the risk to get only terminals, but also requires two cards and costs incredibly much. So maybe $5 isn't even enough? IT would probably be a bit too similar, though.
-
Edit: Gendo's post about Golem is really noteworthy. Golem reduces the risk to get only terminals, but also requires two cards and costs incredibly much. So maybe $5 isn't even enough? IT would probably be a bit too similar, though.
There's the consideration that it comes with a "each opponent draws a card", and not only a card, the next action they have. So that helps balance against Golem too, though I have no idea by how much. I just think mainly that the option to get +1 action instead of playing the card adds a lot of words and complexity to the card, and it's not an option that will be chosen often at all.
As for your card idea, I'm pretty sure that it's only slightly less powerful than Golem on average; and possibly exactly as powerful as Golem. So it could probably cost $4P.
-
I have printes Secret Society. What I wonder is: why does it only cost $3, causing you to be able to buy 2 of them with opening buys and direct access to $5 cards?
$4 seems more reasonable, no?
-
I have printes Secret Society. What I wonder is: why does it only cost $3, causing you to be able to buy 2 of them with opening buys and direct access to $5 cards?
$4 seems more reasonable, no?
Uh, because it's so unreliable, I guess. I thought $3 was appropriate back then. It's probably just as good at $4 and not being normally able to open with two of them is good reason to increase the cost to $4, probably. Anyway, glad you seem to like the card :)
-
I have printes Secret Society. What I wonder is: why does it only cost $3, causing you to be able to buy 2 of them with opening buys and direct access to $5 cards?
$4 seems more reasonable, no?
Uh, because it's so unreliable, I guess. I thought $3 was appropriate back then. It's probably just as good at $4 and not being normally able to open with two of them is good reason to increase the cost to $4, probably. Anyway, glad you seem to like the card :)
It is basically a reverse Bands of Misfits. In the case of Bands of Misfits you have a hyperflexible 2/3/4 that costs 5 whereas with Secret Society you have an inflexible 5 that costs 3.
As you can choose among 2 and as the Secret Society deck is small the risk of hitting a bad 5 is low. Furthermore, even a bad 5$ is usually far better than a 3 so I feel very safe in claiming that Secret Society has to cost 4.
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
It's probably one of my favorite fan cards, I liked it so much that I made another card with the secret society deck! (Actually it was because the black market deck was too random, but I do love secret society.)
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
Nope. I like the idea but it doesn't super-excite me and I have a hunch that with the current parameters, 10 cards in the deck and two to choose from, Secret Society would even be very strong at 4$.
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
Nope. I like the idea but it doesn't super-excite me and I have a hunch that with the current parameters, 10 cards in the deck and two to choose from, Secret Society would even be very strong at 4$.
I really doubt it. Unreliability is a big factor, and when you don't know which two $5 cost cards you'll be able to choose from, it could likely be something that's not at all what you need at that moment.
That said, I'd rather put 20 cards in the Secret Society deck just for fun.
I haven't played with it yet, but I recently printed it out and will be playing with it very soon.
-
4 to 5 is a far huger step than from 3 to 4 and there aren't really that many totally bad 5s. Sure, if you hit Counting House while there are no Coppers in your discard or a Curser while curses are already out it sucks.
But you still got another card and the likelihood of hitting two bads 5s is fairly small.
-
4 to 5 is a far huger step than from 3 to 4 and there aren't really that many totally bad 5s. Sure, if you hit Counting House while there are no Coppers in your discard or a Curser while curses are already out it sucks.
But you still got another card and the likelihood of hitting two bads 5s is fairly small.
a good card and a card that gives what you need at that particular moment are often two different things.
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
It's probably one of my favorite fan cards, I liked it so much that I made another card with the secret society deck! (Actually it was because the black market deck was too random, but I do love secret society.)
Can you post this other card you made?
I also love Secret Society and have played with it. I'm quite positive it should not cost 3. I played it at cost 4, and it was sometimes a little too powerful.
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
It's probably one of my favorite fan cards, I liked it so much that I made another card with the secret society deck! (Actually it was because the black market deck was too random, but I do love secret society.)
Can you post this other card you made?
It's part of a um, thing, um, expect news soon.
EDIT: Wait, different thing, I'll talk to AdrianHealey and confirm, um, something.
-
Nobody needs yo know all the super secret stuff we are doing! ;)
-
So did you already play with the card? If so, how did you and the other players like it? :)
It's probably one of my favorite fan cards, I liked it so much that I made another card with the secret society deck! (Actually it was because the black market deck was too random, but I do love secret society.)
Can you post this other card you made?
I also love Secret Society and have played with it. I'm quite positive it should not cost 3. I played it at cost 4, and it was sometimes a little too powerful.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16043.msg626051#msg626051
-
I played a game with $4 secret society. Wow, what kind of a game warping card is that? :D Admittedly, there were mainly power $5's in the secret society deck, but man, that card is strong. Village + secret society was just dominating.
-
I played a game with $4 secret society. Wow, what kind of a game warping card is that? :D Admittedly, there were mainly power $5's in the secret society deck, but man, that card is strong. Village + secret society was just dominating.
Asper and I recently played a game with $4 Secret Society as well and made the same experience even though only half of the deck was actually good cards. It's probably usually a good strategy to buy some of them even without villages. I don't mind that, though, because the card is so swingy and a lot of fun at the same time.
-
Looks like some actual playing confirmed my hunch that this is even strong at 4.
-
Looks like some actual playing confirmed my hunch that this is even strong at 4.
Yes this is strong at 4 (Speaking from personal experice), but it's also not too OP. Usually only 1/2 the cards in the deck are good, and there's always a chance you'll flip what you don't want. SS is decievingly stong because of the swinginess.
-
Sentinel appears to have disappeared from Imgur. Was this a deliberate removal? Seemed like a popular card.
-
Sentinel appears to have disappeared from Imgur. Was this a deliberate removal? Seemed like a popular card.
That was intentional. When Sentry was published, I realized that it fulfilled basically the same role as Sentinel but in a much more elegant way. I wasn't happy with my card anymore, and see no reason for it to exist parallel to Sentry, so I removed it. I can re-upload the card if you're interested though.
-
Sentinel appears to have disappeared from Imgur. Was this a deliberate removal? Seemed like a popular card.
That was intentional. When Sentry was published, I realized that it fulfilled basically the same role as Sentinel but in a much more elegant way. I wasn't happy with my card anymore, and see no reason for it to exist parallel to Sentry, so I removed it. I can re-upload the card if you're interested though.
I almost agree with you. I liked Sentinel, but haven't used it since I got Sentry partly because they're similar and fill almost the same role and partly because I've printed a lot of fan cards so Sentinel don't come up much in my randomizer (it is still in my custom randomizer). OTOH, they're probably different enough to at least keep Sentinel as part of your post here. Sentinel is terminal, but it (indirectly) lets you trash cards from your hand so it's stronger as a trasher.
-
Sentinel appears to have disappeared from Imgur. Was this a deliberate removal? Seemed like a popular card.
That was intentional. When Sentry was published, I realized that it fulfilled basically the same role as Sentinel but in a much more elegant way. I wasn't happy with my card anymore, and see no reason for it to exist parallel to Sentry, so I removed it. I can re-upload the card if you're interested though.
Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you.