Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: popsofctown on October 28, 2016, 05:28:05 pm
-
Overseer
3$
+3 Cards
Discard a Treasure card (or reveal a hand with no treasures).
You may trash a Refugee Camp from your hand.
Refugee Camp (no randomizer card)
*2$ - Action
+2 Actions
+1$
+1 Buy
_____________________________________
When you gain a card that isn't a Refugee Camp, you may gain a Refugee Camp from the Refugee Camp Pile
When you gain a card that is a Refugee Camp, the player to your left may have you gain a Refugee Camp from the Refugee Camp Pile.
(This isn't in the supply)
Ducat
*4$ - Treasure
+3$
Any player may reveal a Duchy from his or her hand. If any player does, return Ducat to the supply.
________________________________________
You can't buy this card (it's in the supply)
When you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Ducat.
Woad Raider
5$ Action - Attack
+2$
Each player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals his or her hand. For each player, name a card, and that player discard all copies of the named card. Trash Woad Raider.
_________________________________________________________________
In games using this, when you end your buy phase without buying a card, gain a Woad Raider.
I'm a big fan of Duchess, so I made up some cards with Duchess clauses. The first one feels like it really needs a ban on buying the card, otherwise it will never compete with Village. As Donald has said, Village could be 0$ and function pretty similarly. Refugee Camp would pretty much always be strictly worse than Village if it costed 0, there would be no reason to fool with its recursive drawback if there were other ways to get +actions and getting +actions is going to cost you at least one buy anyway (except on boards flooded with +buy, but I don't want it restricted to that).
The second one -could- be buyable at 5$, but I think makes for more interesting games at unbuyable. On an engine board that looks towards Goonsing eachother later but with no trashing, you could easily buy it as a 5$ gold and say, go ahead, take a nonGoons Duchy AND a nonGoons goldish to try to nerf me. I dare you. But I think it's more interesting when it's only a Duchy dance wrinkle. It's also possible that this is better as a Silver.
The last one has this core concept of what if you had a devastating attack, but you could guarantee Alms was always on the same kingdoms where that attack showed up, so it's kind of ok. When I looked back on the card it seemed to be quite the case that buyable is better than nonbuyable. I think it's a weak 5, though it's hard to say since gaining spoils is such an abstract bonus on the similar Pillage. I would think its use as an actual 5$ purchase would be tactical and surgical and an effort to hit something specific with the attack. The vanilla bonuses on this one might need a tweak.
Hopefully at least one of these is better than my recent vomit!
-
Um, as worded, if I choose to take a Refugee camp when I gain another card, my opponent can instantly force me to take 8 more. And more often than not, that would be the right move probably. And it's also impossible for the stack to ever empty, which seems ugly.
-
And most of the time, Woad Raider should be much stronger than Pillage. I think the Vanilla bonus is usually stronger, the attack is strictly harsher, and it costs as little as you have to spend.
-
I was going for crazy and absurd. At a minimum, if it's the only village and it's a Goons tableau, gaining Necropoli at risk of getting more of them than you'd prefer is mandatory. But I want to figure out something to where maybe it competes with normal villages also.
The templating ugliness is true.
I tried to make Refugee camp a kind of spoils pile so that maybe it will work. The idea is that with 1 Overseer in deck and a few powerful 5$ terminals in deck, you could start gaining free camps without getting decimated for it, donating the wrong stack could be the wrong play, it's not that bad, and now you ensure you yourself will spend 1 buy on every single one of your villages when someone else didn't.
I think Woad Raider is unsalvageable
-
"Cards you don't actually buy" is a pretty old concept in Dominion. It was first introduced in the original Base set in cards such as Adventurer and Thief.
-
With Overlord (already a real card name), the setup clause isn't necessary. See Tournament, Hermit, Spoils-gainers.
-
Thanks and thanks!
My excuse for being ignorant about official cards is being pumped about ShuffleIT and not having a physical dominion local playgroup.
-
I like Overseer. Could be on the strong side though but then again I think that even "+3 Cards | take 1 Debt" would be on the strong side of 3.
Refugee Camp is technically broken due to the infinite loop but it will probably be OK if you just cut that.
I like Ducat, a semi-Spoils and a kind of a fixed Duchess which you might actually go for and which thus actually makes Duchies more viable.
-
I like Overseer. Could be on the strong side though but then again I think that even "+3 Cards | take 1 Debt" would be on the strong side of 3.
FTFY.
-
It's worse than Smithy so I thought 3 is ok since 3 and 4 are kind of the same. But I don't mind putting it at 4 at all.
Isn't 3 cards take 1 debt almost strictly better than 3 cards discard a treasure? Sometimes you're forced to discard a Silver, not a Copper.
The infinite loop is on purpose.
-
It's worse than Smithy so I thought 3 is ok since 3 and 4 are kind of the same. But I don't mind putting it at 4 at all.
Isn't 3 cards take 1 debt almost strictly better than 3 cards discard a treasure? Sometimes you're forced to discard a Silver, not a Copper.
The infinite loop is on purpose.
Well, Overseer has to cost 4 as it is strictly worse than a Smithy.
Taking a Debt can be worse (if you play an engine without any Treasures ) or worse (if you gotta discard Silver/Gold) than discarding a Treasure.
I think that junking an opponent with 10 Refugee Camps could be devastating so I wouldn't go for that.
-
Well, Overseer has to cost 4 as it is strictly worse than a Smithy.
I think you mean 3, since Smithy costs 4.
-
You can't make an opponent gain tons of Refugee Camps unless they elect to take one.
-
Wow, I saw the title and I just thought this was a thread about Scout, but instead its about Fan Cards, oh well.
-
Well some here would argue my card design ability mimics the level Donald was performing at when he cranked out Scout..
-
I was going for crazy and absurd. At a minimum, if it's the only village and it's a Goons tableau, gaining Necropoli at risk of getting more of them than you'd prefer is mandatory. But I want to figure out something to where maybe it competes with normal villages also.
The templating ugliness is true.
I tried to make Refugee camp a kind of spoils pile so that maybe it will work. The idea is that with 1 Overseer in deck and a few powerful 5$ terminals in deck, you could start gaining free camps without getting decimated for it, donating the wrong stack could be the wrong play, it's not that bad, and now you ensure you yourself will spend 1 buy on every single one of your villages when someone else didn't.
I think Woad Raider is unsalvageable
How about this?
Overseer
3$
+3 Cards
Discard a Treasure card (or reveal a hand with no treasures).
You may gain a Refugee Camp.
Refugee Camp
*2$ - Action
+2 Actions
+1$
Return this to its pile.
(This isn't in the supply)
-
I feel like that's a totally completely different card, but it is independently a good design, not gonna lie. I think you'd want to push Overseer to 4$ though, the double opener would be going places but the single opener would be right where you want the balance.
-
You can't make an opponent gain tons of Refugee Camps unless they elect to take one.
Sure. But your current design deterrs players from gaining one Refugee Camp as they might very well end up getting junked with 10 of them so why do the card in the first place if it will most likely never be gained at all?
-
It's worse than Smithy so I thought 3 is ok since 3 and 4 are kind of the same. But I don't mind putting it at 4 at all.
Isn't 3 cards take 1 debt almost strictly better than 3 cards discard a treasure? Sometimes you're forced to discard a Silver, not a Copper.
The infinite loop is on purpose.
I think Refugee Camp needs more attraction if it junks your deck.
Refugee Camp
cost $0* - Action
+2 Action
+$2
When you buy a card, you may gain this and a Copper.
(This is not in the Supply.)
This is finite, more strategic, more attractive I think.
-
Even with the self-copper junking this might be too strong. It is after all nearly as good as a Festival and would thus be an overpowered 4 without the self-junking clause.
-
Even with the self-copper junking this might be too strong. It is after all nearly as good as a Festival and would thus be an overpowered 4 without the self-junking clause.
Hmm, overpowered at 4 seems like a strech.
-
Even with the self-copper junking this might be too strong. It is after all nearly as good as a Festival and would thus be an overpowered 4 without the self-junking clause.
Hmm, overpowered at 4 seems like a strech.
No, he's right... without the junking, it's just Festival without +buy. Adding just a buy wouldn't take a card from $4 to $5.
*Edit* I just realized that that's what Peddler vs Market is, so never mind.
-
You can't make an opponent gain tons of Refugee Camps unless they elect to take one.
Sure. But your current design deterrs players from gaining one Refugee Camp as they might very well end up getting junked with 10 of them so why do the card in the first place if it will most likely never be gained at all?
On a board with + buy and no other villages it seems too good to pass up.
I'll buff it again, I want to believe in this concept.
-
Even with the self-copper junking this might be too strong. It is after all nearly as good as a Festival and would thus be an overpowered 4 without the self-junking clause.
Hmm, overpowered at 4 seems like a strech.
No, he's right... without the junking, it's just Festival without +buy. Adding just a buy wouldn't take a card from $4 to $5.
*Edit* I just realized that that's what Peddler vs Market is, so never mind.
Except that the difference is actually between Market and Poacher, the latter of which is strictly worse than Peddler. Even then, adding just a buy doesn't actually take a card from $4 to $5; adding a buy and removing a drawback does.